





'»n • 

& *« **• <, 

\ 




0 0 ,^ D H 0**jp * 

**n * -o’ . * * * < 1 ^. 3K -1*0. V\ 

► V % $ Jlw * Qt> »• fi 5 S * 

,r *§fe « /jS5SC&% ^ 


v^*. -.'■SUMF; - wjl? •? _* A*. r ^^&* £ * 

■? J? e o./- > » 3 B o’° a.°° ^/»~T»* <*- 

*t4& * m: - •*^^^ < '* s 

* \w/\*/\'%pi^4/\\l ? i i 

<<> < **’ $-° , i.., 0 ^ *°»‘'‘^y k 6 o«o, ^ < **' 0 ' 5 ‘ & k < l, *«°‘tb °' 1 c*”* ««,'•»- 

*, % o° Vl«^\ °o ^vW*- V 0° °o .4* • ■**« - # - *- 

r. w w /4irar. -w 

* -A.Ck ft 


f * ft * S 



A ov _ . ^ 

o ^ 

‘ %■& ?MMm% 

C - i ►> L c..o * 

* >P V \ ■ 


_ * '^ilVsS^s* i» - v <r>- c rZ/7/l'fcff £ >? 

Ck rP aT 

„ '■’* <?,.* 
% •%•, > .* 
o V*V u 

, n l 

**<#" \ % Q , 

A * ua^ <V Q °' 

, G° fmmk* °-> 
v*o x * §mm<£ » 5 

, /°-* -* 5 i!p '. 0 # 

* ^ <, * . V^OKOOV 
CV _vO 


J j*, 


V° * cO*c^V " " * 0^1 

[° >%, *+%zmSrj +\B^-S’ * 

A° ... A. *- -♦ *■* 


ft o 


A ^° * ^ t oKc, • * * o*V L, *«fV [ 0 * "V s S 0 * G **\ * 9 

- ^ o'^ew; \ 0 * :£am>: *b^ + 

; ^°/- *^^»° 0 * \ \<iw*! v 

, . • s ^ 4 . - f y'”” 0 /,, . o-V- * * i-°V‘ 0, “’’^'° *’,* «A / > V " 1 * V*t‘ * 

\ %./ f'&W'f ?*M£\ ^ ^ ° * * * 

a 

* -<</ “^K O 

•V 




v# '- 1 • • 5 . ... 4 \' 0 > l \o> 

t, cP °o -• 

' Vo 1 *of ° 


»° ^"V, o^^p.* ^' V, \ %^^P/% ° 

/- •*,<? o^»*. . *b^ f-^ia* w ♦®» i . 


j^°ft - 

/.^,V°' 

^ 0 ° *Vj^.% °o 

. ^ '<?> <t * SFMZ^/a * ^-“O o w ' r * ^C 

\ a v*o % <■ JSireif ft 2 V ft * v 

? - jn „ UWvi _ .r»_> tv/^alHsr * A.O. ft 

%:».„ -oT<;^%T. »^p ;:: Vy' 



V 06 

^ vP 

; 

^ <V ^ 

^ w - -y „ L1 , *° *’*** A 

v . c?y 

f:) 'i *o? :^DSk r * *+<? 


c\ 

^ _ . ™ r ^ ft % ^ 

n o ^ *> <V . 

s^V o 1 h 4 ^^.\H’ •% <X^ ^ v •qJ’ 

* • *‘ v.,\o'° » ‘■* 1 ^ > . c o»o - ^ 



o ** 

** ^ ^ 



* AO. 

w 



k «j n/^<s,\r j <x’ •o' ^ <v -oJ^ w . 

■ V * c-O^./V * ’ ' O^* L, *»'\ 

'A %■? 

,o_> 




* Xr >. 
® - 
ti* O 

%. A* ■ " • ' 



r %^l 1 <1 * ,%>OKOO%P° 

, Vs s|VjV GV a<3> 

.’ J R\W/^'X ^ ^ . ** A 




. . . >/»«,-, » . . ,V''”“’'/ 0 ,< * o/^'n * \S 

% %■& » Jp® ,. -$M|U < 

^ * ’ oWo? ’■>''^“ K0 * < ^ ’ * ,o*>* 11 **>0..°' k 


a 

V 


,\'° * '&%£&* '' 

’ -t ^ o * 7 -f, « ^ •<. 



O o 

J» o 

V, - *X>. °*o . * 

ov u, 'A 

"*/* vy O /$* J&z/fffi}*? * ^ H c^sSVV^ **‘ <Y » 

- *• * -*■*' ?Mk\ \<? /jar* \/ • W. 


?\w •» * MIS * «? °, Tow * A A> 

^ . + 2 * 0 **'+ Ar <K *^W ^ 

v* /4l!&* -W * JfiK *o? ,°^^'. 

/ ^°* e vSRv^ 
^V^X*"°>° 



,„ cr*' 

■ „ *W . 

v 0 ^v*m* ♦-W;/V^/' t J v~.. 6 . 

,. 0 v^T-V'.. ,V*--v° *». o/v»- * v s * - * V* 3NO V *« * o^% 

* ^ „ ' / V s’ ' <v V> A 7 > Q *a / , . V , *5 VA A^O *‘ # sc.«' </ .k , v 

/JiT; \/ -^fe e . ?^V A; 

. /\W; ^ v \ ^”\ ^ v \ 

’ '* > °^ %° 4 b-. <^ >0 ' t ' 0 ^°^ ~*%W& ' 










THE CATALOG IN PUBLICATION PROGRAM 


CIP Poised for Change: 

Survey Findings and Recommendations 
of the 2006 CIP Review Group 



Library of Congress 


Washington, DC 


2007 














- 





f * 




- 

ih Oil 











CIP Poised for Change: 

Survey Findings and Recommendations 
of the 2006 CIP Review Group 


Prepared by staff of the Bibliographic Access divisions of the Library of Congress 


Diane Barber, Acting Assistant Chief, Cataloging in Publication Division 
David Bucknum, Systems Librarian, Cataloging in Publication Division 
John Celli, Chief, Cataloging in Publication Division 

Mitzi Collins, Senior Cataloging Specialist, Technology Team I, Arts & Sciences Cataloging 
Division 

Patricia Hayward, CIP Program Specialist, Cataloging in Publication Division 

Oxana Horodecka, Electronic Programs Coordinator, Cataloging in Publication Division 

Gene Kinnaly, CIP Program Specialist, Cataloging in Publication Division 

Albert Kohlmeier, Technical Assistant to the Chief, Cataloging in Publication Division 

Cassandra Latney, Team leader, CIP Publisher Liaison Team, Cataloging in Publication Division 

Susan Morris, Assistant to the Director (Bibliographic Access) 

Allyson Nolan, Senior Cataloger, Anglo-American Literature Team, History & Literature 
Cataloging Division 

William Vernigor, Team Leader, Copy Cataloging Pilot Team, Arts & Sciences Cataloging 
Division 

T Michael Womack, Senior Cataloging Specialist, Germanic/Scandinavian Team, Social Sciences 
Cataloging Division 


Library of Congress - Cataloging in Publication Division Washington, D.C. 2007 



U S. Government Work. Not subject to copyright in the United States. Foreign Copyrights may 
apply. All content in the report may be reproduced, reprinted, and/or redistributed within the 
United States. Please credit the Library of Congress. 


Library of Congress 
Cataloging in Publication Division 
101 Independence Avenue, S.E. 
Washington, D.C. 20540-4320 



Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 

CIP poised for change : survey findings and recommendations of the 2006 CIP Rev iew Group / prepared by 
staff of the Bibliographic Access Divisions of the Library of Congress, 
p. cm 

Summary: "Presents the questions asked and responses received from libraries, publishers, and MARC 
customers to the 2006 CIP Survey. Includes extensive recommendations based on survey findings"~Provided 
by publisher. 

Includes bibliographical references. 

ISBN-13: 978-0-8444-1172-9 
ISBN-10: 0-8444-1172-8 

1. Cataloging in publication—United States—Use studies. 2. Library surveys—United States. 3. Publishers 
and publishing-United States. 4. MARC formats-United States. 5. Library of Congress Cataloging in 
Publication Division. I Library of Congress. Cataloging in Publication Division. II Title: Cataloging in 
Publication poised for change III. Title: Surv ey findings and recommendations of the 2006 CIP Review 
Group. 

Z693.3 C38C56 2007 
025.3-dc22 


ISBN-13: 978-0-8444-1172-9 
ISBN-10: 0-8444-1172-8 


2007015586 


CONTENTS 


Acknowledgments and Executive Summary 

Acknowledgments.5 

Executive Summary.7 

Introduction 

Introduction .10 

Background.13 

Compilation of Data 

CIP Survey for MARC Customers .19 

CIP Survey for Libraries .31 

CIP Survey for Publishers .46 

Recommendations 

The Purpose of the CIP Program.56 

CIP data elements .60 

CIP data accuracy .69 

CIP verification process.70 

Scope .71 

Eligibility.79 

Service to Publishers .83 

Future Services .86 

PCN Program .86 


3 


















Emily A. Hicks, Director of Information Acquisition and Organization, Roesch Library, 
University of Dayton, Dayton, OH 

Tina Jordan, Vice President, Association of American Publishers, New York, NY 
Oksana Kraus, Librarian, Cleveland Public Library, Cleveland, OH 
Martin Kurth, Head of Cataloging, Central Technical Serv ices, Cornell University Library, 
Ithaca, NY 

Marilyn McCroskey, Professor, Head of Cataloging, Duane G. Meyer Library, Missouri 
State University, Springfield, MO 
Michael Olenick, Database Analyst, Bowker, New Providence, NJ 
Virginia Overberg, Manager, Book Cataloging, Baker & Taylor, Bridgewater, NJ 
Janet Peterson, Editorial Administrator & Permissions Manager, World Book, Chicago, IL 
Sara Shatford Layne, Principal Cataloger-Cataloging Center, University of California 
Los Angeles, Science & Engineering Library, Young Research Library, Los 
Angeles, CA 

Jean Srnecz, Senior Vice President, Merchandising, Baker & Taylor, Bridgewater, NJ 
Mike Tribby, Senior Cataloger, Quality Books, Inc., Oregon, IL 

Cynthia M. Whitacre, Manager, WorldCat Quality & Partner Content Department, OCLC, 
Dublin, OH 

We are also indebted to Library of Congress staff throughout the entire library and in particular the 
Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Directorate for helping to disseminate information about the 
three CIP surveys, especially the efforts of: 

Bruce Johnson, Cataloging Distribution Service, and President, Association for Library 
Collections & Technical Services, ALA 
Loche McLean, Cataloging Distribution Service 

Kathryn Mendenhall, former chief of Cataloging Distribution Service, acting director of the 
Partnerships and Outreach Programs and acting director of Technology Policy 
Carolyn Sturtevant, BIBCO Coordinator 

David Williamson, Cataloging Automation Specialist, Acquisitions & Bibliographic Access 
Directorate 

We would also like to thank the following staff of the Printing Management Section, Integrated 
Support Services, for their role in developing and producing promotional material: 

Stanley Bandong, Visual Information Specialist, Graphic Arts Services Unit 
Timothy L. Blount, Printing Specialist 

Sandra K Ferrell, Team Leader of the Graphic Arts Services Unit 
Peggy F. Pixley, Supervisor of the Composing and Editorial Services Unit 
John Richardson, Contractor, Printing Specialist. 


6 


Executive Summary 


Programs 

• The findings of the 2006 CIP Survey validate the mission of the Cataloging in 
Publication (CIP) program. 

The nation’s libraries rely on the program as a principal source of high quality cataloging 
which reduces their cataloging costs and expedites processing and services to readers. The 
library community wants the CIP program to continue and to expand its scope. 

Ninety-two percent of library respondents-school libraries, public libraries, academic 
libraries, special libraries-rated the CIP program as important or very important because it 
saves resources, it standardizes cataloging, it improves the quality of cataloging, and it 
speeds books and services to users. 

Seventy-nine percent of MARC Distribution Service customers also rated the program as 
important or very important for similar reasons while more than 76% of publisher 
respondents valued the program highly for its marketing value and increased sales. 

The CIP program continues to be a valuable source of books for the Library. 

• The Electronic Cataloging in Publication (ECIP) cataloging partnership program 
should be expanded. 

In view of diminishing cataloging resources, the CIP program should expand the ECIP 
cataloging partnership program. More partners will ensure availability of cataloging 
resources. All partners need not be of the same size or type; all partners need not do 
complete cataloging. 

Publishers specializing in a specific subject area can be matched with libraries with 
corresponding subject cataloging expertise (e g . Timber Press ECIPs routed to the National 
Agricultural Library). 

Services 


• The CIP Division should renew its focus on prompt customer service. 

Retrain Publisher Liaison Team members to respond to more complicated inquiries from 
publishers as the number of formats and enhancements covered by the CIP program 
increases. 


7 




Reply to all telephone inquiries within eight working hours. 


• The CIP service should be enhanced. 

Expand current efforts to enrich CIP data with additional elements (eg., tables of contents, 
summaries, author information, book jacket images, genre headings, price, etc.) with the 
assistance of publishers and other libraries. 

Develop a user interface to enable readers to readily search forthcoming books and display 
forthcoming book information with a complete array of enriching elements (including 
sample text). 

Continue to print CIP data in the book to meet library community needs. This stipulation 
ensures that the CIP process will generate CIP data in advance of publication and thereby 
maintain a critical aspect of its value, i.e., timeliness. 

Re-purpose records for ink print publications to create catalog records for audio, video, or 
ebook publications with the addition of elements unique to these formats. 

• CIP service to libraries should be enhanced. 

Develop a user interface to enable libraries to readily access CIP records, other LC records, 
and sets of records for materials published in a variety of formats. Libraries want to obtain 
CIP data directly for the books they acquire. Currently libraries obtain CIP data via Z39.50 
searching, by copying the data they find printed in the book, or via intermediaries such as 
OCLC or vendors. In addition, the Library of Congress might route CIP records to a 
library according to a predetermined collection development profile. 

Provide libraries with convenient access to all enriching data, e.g., summaries, reviews, 
tables of contents, etc. 

Develop a cataloging partners program module to facilitate participation of ECIP cataloging 
partners and other cooperative efforts. 

Refer to the Name Authority Cooperative Program (NACO) model in an effort to provide 
standards, leadership, and training for creating records by a larger audience of contributors. 

• CIP service to publishers should be enhanced. 

Develop a user interface to enable publishers to readily access CIP records, other LC 
records, and sets of records for materials published in a variety of formats relevant to the 
publishers’ imprints. 


8 


Modify the ECIP system to process text in PDF or a combination of PDF and ASCII. 

Include US publishers of non-English publications in the CIP program if their works are 
widely acquired by the nation’s libraries. 

Provide publishers the option of obtaining CIP data as an ONIX record. 

• CIP service to recommending officers. Selection Librarians, and Congressional 
Research Service staff should be developed. 

Develop an ECIP display listing broad subject categories of recently cataloged EC IPs to 
provide access to full information about the forthcoming titles. This would enable LC staff 
to make selecting/recommending decisions about the work and note it in the catalog record. 

Systems 

• The ECIP system should be enhanced. 

Modify ECIP to accommodate publisher submission of enrichment elements such as book 
jackets, indexes, bibliographies, etc., for new titles and for existing titles for which CIP data 
was previously provided. 

Modify TCEC (text capture and electronic conversion) to accommodate additional data 
elements such as price and genre. 

• The Electronic Preassigned Control Number (EPCN) system should be enhanced. 

Improve the quality of the EPCN record by providing publishers more detailed instructions 
and examples. 

Expand the EPCN record by obtaining more data elements from the publisher. 

Modify EPCN to accommodate applications for audio works and works in other formats. 

Use EPCN as a testing ground for the submission of additional enrichment elements and 
other enhancements. 


9 



Introduction 


This report evaluates two programs: The Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication program 
and the Library of Congress Preassigned Control Number program. Given the complexity of the 
CIP program relative to the PCN program, the C1P program is the principal subject of this report. 
This report also concerns the selection decision-making process to the extent that it relates to the 
CIP program. 

This undertaking is a result of the Bibliographic Access Divisions Strategic Plan for fiscal years 
2005-2006. Goal IV, Objective 1 of that plan states the following: 

“Evaluate the CIP Program with the aims to reduce costs, speed throughput, and improve 
selection decision-making while ensuring that the CIP program meets the most important 
needs of end users, libraries, and publishers. Also review the mission of the EPCN 
[Electronic Preassigned Control Number] program. ” 

The Director for Bibliographic Access and Acquisitions, Beacher Wiggins, assigned this task to the 
Chief of the Cataloging in Publication Division, John Celli, and Assistant to the Director 
(Bibliographic Access), Susan Morris. They assembled and co-chaired a work group to undertake 
this review. The work group, known as the CIP Review Group (CRG), included the following: 

Diane Barber, Acting Assistant Chief, Cataloging in Publication Division 
David Bucknum*, Systems Librarian, Cataloging in Publication Division 
John Celli, Chief, Cataloging in Publication Division 

Mitzi Collins, Senior Cataloging Specialist, Technology Team I, Arts & Sciences 
Cataloging Division 

Patricia Hayward, CIP Program Specialist, Cataloging in Publication Division 
Oxana Horodecka, Electronic Programs Coordinator, Cataloging in Publication Division 
Gene Kinnaly, CIP Program Specialist, Cataloging in Publication Division 
Albert Kohlmeier, Technical Assistant to the Chief, Cataloging in Publication Division 
Cassandra Latney, Team leader, CIP Publisher Liaison Team, 

Cataloging in Publication Division 
Susan Morris, Assistant to the Director (Bibliographic Access) 

Allyson Nolan*, Senior Cataloger, Anglo-American Literature Team, History & Literature 
Cataloging Division 

William Vernigor, Team Leader, Copy Cataloging Pilot Team, Arts & Sciences Cataloging 
Division 

T. Michael Womack*, Senior Cataloging Specialist, Germanic/Scandinavian Team, Social 
Science Cataloging Division 

(* Promotion to another position or work assignment obligations in other areas required these staff to w ithdraw from 
CRG before the findings of this report were determined.) 


10 


CRG met regularly starting in April 2005 and investigated a wide range of issues, including 
workflow, the various modules of the ECIP program, the EPCN system, staffing levels, scope and 
eligibility policies, the ECIP cataloging partners program, the Publisher Provided Summary 
program, MeSH and LCSH, genre terms, program enhancements, and other such matters related to 
the CIP and PCN programs. 

CRG obtained input from LC staff and the CIP Advisory Group and consulted a number of 
documents that might have relevance to its considerations. (See Bibliography) 

CRG also developed and implemented three major surveys to obtain input from the library 
community, publishers, and subscribers to LC’s Cataloging Distribution Service MARC 
Distribution Service. Drafts of the surveys were reviewed and commented upon by the CIP 
Advisory Group and LC staff. 

The information obtained by these surveys played an important role in CRG’s deliberations 
and recommendations. Other factors also played an important role. These include: 

• The CIP program mission. The mission of the CIP program is to serve the nation’s 
libraries by cataloging in advance those works most likely to be widely acquired by 
the nation’s libraries. 

• Limited resources. The resources available to support all Library of Congress 
cataloging programs (including the CIP program) have decreased dramatically over 
the past several years and will continue to decrease for the foreseeable future as staff 
retirements continue apace. 

• Automation. Whenever possible CRG sought to employ automation as a tool to 
reduce cost, improve efficiency, and/or enhance service. 

• Library Services Strategic Plan FY2008-2013. Specifically: 

Goal 2. A. 1 “Set new standards for the type of information and services needed to 
find and manage items in the Library’s collections, including work in digital 
formats. ” 

Goal 2.B.4 “Employ new technologies, including Webcasts and podcasts, to deliver 
collections to users. ” 

Goal 4.E 1 “Provide timely services that are responsive to the communities we 
serve. ” 

• Directorate reorganization. Two directorates, the Cataloging Directorate and the 
Acquisitions Directorate, were realigned in 2004. The realignment combined these 


two directorates and united them as a single directorate, the Acquisitions and 
Bibliographic Access (ABA) Directorate, under a single senior manager. A 
reorganization of the divisions within ABA is now being planned which will affect 
staffing levels, work assignments, workflow, etc. 

• Staff experience. Many catalogers, technicians and CIP staff have worked with the 

CIP program for literally decades and are a source of invaluable knowledge, not 
only because they perform day-to-day production activities but also because many 
were involved in development of the procedures and systems that constitute the CIP 
program. Automation staff that built and maintain the ECIP and EPCN systems 
were also an important source of information for this study. 

The recommendations of this report, therefore, have been shaped not only by the wealth of 
information provided by the surveys but also by the knowledge and experience of Library of 
Congress staff as well as the keen awareness that resources are limited and that efficiencies and cost 
reductions must be obtained wherever possible. These recommendations were also influenced by 
the optimism implicit in the goals of the Library Services Strategic Plan that challenges Library 
managers, staff, and partners to provide not only a service that meets a genuine need, but an 
enhanced service that meets as fully as possible the expectations of libraries, publishers, and readers 
that look to the Library of Congress for service, support, and leadership 

The body of this report consists of six additional sections: 

* Background 

* Overview of Data: CIP Survey for MARC Customers 

* Overview of Data: CIP Survey for Libraries 

* Overview of Data: CIP Survey for Publishers 

* Recommendations 

* Nexus - A CIP Strategy for the Future 

The Background section provides an overview of the CIP and PCN programs to provide 
context for the recommendations that follow. The three Overview of Data sections present the 
data obtained from the three surveys. These include introductory remarks about the data and the 
manner in which each of the surveys was marketed. The Recommendations section consists of a 
catalog of recommendations. These recommendations concern a wide range of issues-some 
focused and specific, some broad policy issues-but all related to the factors (noted in the 
introduction) that motivate this report. The last section. Nexus - A CIP Strategy for the Future, 
presents a broad plan for the future of the two programs but especially the future of the CIP 
program. While the Recommendations section enumerates a number of fixes and improvements, 
CRG believes that more than a melange of fixes and adjustments is in order to fulfill the 
requirements of this report. The data obtained in the course of this undertaking has provided ample 
evidence to CRG that the CIP program plays a critical role in providing Americans with access to 
the nation’s intellectual and creative achievement. Therefore, CRG reviewed the fundamental 


12 


assumptions upon which the CIP program is built, and recommended a new and expanded vision 
that CRG believes will enable the CIP program to meet more fully the needs of the library 
community, while reducing overall costs and more broadly involving the library community for 
whom it was established, and to whom it belongs. 


Background 


CIP Program Mission. 

The CIP program was established thirty-six years ago to serve the nation’s libraries by cataloging, 
in advance of publication, books widely acquired by the nation’s libraries. If the CIP program can 
catalog these works early in their life cycle and can make the catalog records broadly available, 
many libraries can benefit. Instead of individual libraries cataloging the same work repeatedly, the 
work is cataloged once, and literally thousands of libraries — school libraries in particular — can use 
the resulting record and can redirect resources consumed by cataloging these works to other uses. 

The catalog records created by the program provide bibliographic control of books in libraries so 
readers can readily access the books that meet their needs. Because these bibliographic records are 
also distributed in machine-readable form prior to the book’s publication, they also support 
acquisition, book selection, and book purchasing activities. Many booksellers and large libraries 
worldwide obtain these records via the Library’s MARC Distribution Service and they in turn 
distribute them in various products and services that alert libraries, book stores, and readers to 
forthcoming titles. In many instances, these parties place orders for these titles. In this way CIP 
also serves as a marketing tool for publishers. 

CIP cataloging is also used in other ways. Readers and librarians use the CIP data printed in books 
as a reference tool. The subject access points connect the reader to related subject areas. The 
classification number (both the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress classification numbers) 
indicates the location of the book in hand as well as the location of other books on the same 
subject This information is also useful for processing and routing books to appropriate staff when 
books are first received from the bookseller. And because the book arrives precataloged, it is 
immediately available to the reader. Little additional processing is required. 

The summaries contained in many CIP records also provide a brief and objective statement of the 
book’s content, while also providing additional keyword searching when indexed by local library 
search engines The summaries in CIP records for juvenile works are especially valuable for young 
readers Many school librarians also use the CIP record to instruct students on how to access 
information The CIP catalog record is in many cases the first bibliographic tool that youngsters 
encounter in an instructional setting. 


13 


The CIP Process. 


The publisher submits a CIP data application with the accompanying text of the forthcoming (not 
yet published) book. CIP Division staff review the application. If it is complete and within scope 
for the program, an initial bibliographic record is created, a Library of Congress control number is 
assigned, and the work is forwarded to the appropriate cataloging team for descriptive cataloging, 
name authority work, subject analysis, LC classification, and Dewey Decimal classification. The 
completed work is returned to the CIP Division and a version of the catalog record (known as CIP 
data) is prepared and sent to the publisher. The publisher then prints the CIP data on the verso of 
the title page. 

The CIP program strives to complete CIP processing within two weeks of receipt of the CIP 
application. This tight time frame is essential to the CIP process. Publishers submit applications 
when the elements of the book’s identity (e.g., title, subtitle, and content) are not expected to 
change But this circumstance does not usually occur until the book is well advanced in 
development and the print date established. If the CIP data is to be printed in the book, the CIP 
process must occur promptly. 

If the work is submitted too early, changes will be likely. If too late, the data will not be printed in 
the book. Publishers can submit change requests prior to the book’s publication. To request a 
change, the publisher completes a change request form, identifying the specific change requested 
and attaches a new title page and/or copyright page to evidence the change. Minor changes-e.g., 
ISBN corrections, proposed publication dates, typos—are made by CIP Publisher Liaisons in the 
CIP Division. Substantive changes that affect cataloging are forwarded to the cataloging teams 

As soon as the book is published, the publisher sends a copy to the CIP Division. Library staff then 
compare the book-in-hand with the bibliographic record This process is known as CIP 
verification. If changes have occurred subsequent to the CIP cataloging process, the record is 
edited to reflect these changes. The most frequent changes occur to the title page-changes to the 
title, subtitle, series, author’s name or form of the author’s name The imprint information may also 
be changed at this time—not because the name of the publisher or imprint has in fact changed but, 
most often, because the name of the imprint or publisher was presented on the accompanying text 
carelessly or in an abbreviated manner that did not reflect how this information is printed in the 
book. Pagination and size are always added at this time as this information is not available when 
the publisher originally requests the CIP data. 

The CIP verification process cannot occur until the publisher sends a copy of the book to the 
Library immediately upon publication. Many publishers do this promptly, some do not, and some 
do not send the published book at all Outstanding books must be claimed This slows down the 
verification process and consumes staff resources. Because the CIP record is redistributed after 
verification occurs, many records are not redistributed in a timely manner This suggests to some 
libraries that access the initial CIP record that some books are not yet published when in fact they 
have been 


14 


Electronic CIP. 


When the CIP program was first established, it was a paper-based process. That is, the application 
forms were paper (four carbon leaves with pressure sensitive address labels), the galleys or 
manuscripts that accompanied the application were paper, and the complete package was submitted 
by U S Postal Service or, more often, by a commercial carrier such as FedEx or UPS. 

In 1999, the Electronic CIP (ECIP) system was implemented. ECIP enabled the publisher to use 
the Internet to submit applications. The publisher first completed an online Application to 
Participate form. Upon submission, the form was reviewed by CIP staff. If the publisher was 
eligible, the publisher was sent an account number and password This enabled the publisher to 
access the appropriate form to request CIP cataloging. 

The ECIP Data Application form is much like its paper counterpart but includes some additional 
elements that facilitate processing. The publisher prepares the text file (containing, ideally, the full 
text, but often only front matter and sample chapters) in ASCII to attach to the application. Before 
attaching and submitting the file, the publisher adds some basic code to the file such as <tp> to 
indicate the beginning of the title page and </tp> to indicate the end of the title page. 

When the CIP application is received, CIP staff reviews it for completeness and eligibility. They 
also ensure that the text is coded correctly and accessible. This is done within a module of the 
ECIP system known as the Traffic Manager. 

Acceptable applications are assigned a Library of Congress Control Number and then forwarded to 
the cataloging team with the appropriate expertise. Another ECIP system module, Text Capture 
and Electronic Conversion (TCEC), facilitates the descriptive part of the cataloging process. 

TCEC enables the cataloger to readily copy data elements from the title page, copyright page, table 
of contents and the application form into a structured catalog record TCEC also adds some fixed 
data elements automatically. The subject cataloging and classification work follow. When the 
cataloging is complete, the application is returned to the CIP Division, and CIP staff then email the 
completed data to the publisher. 

The ECIP system has provided dramatic efficiencies. Postal costs were eliminated Overall 
turnaround time has improved significantly. Labor-intensive handling and distribution tasks 
associated with the paper process were eliminated. Keying was substantially reduced. And all 
aspects of the program and its workflow are now more tightly controlled. Library staff and 
publishers can track titles in process. 

Of equal importance, the ECIP system has facilitated record enhancement at virtually no cost. The 
TCEC module enables the cataloger to format the table of contents and move it into a 505 field 
with relatively little editing Other automated applications add a link to an 856 field so longer table 
of contents notes are accessible via the hyperlink when the CIP record appears in an online system. 


15 


The ECIP system also led to the development of the Publisher Provided Summary program. 
Publishers participating in the ECIP program can provide summaries (adhering to CIP criteria) with 
the CIP Data Application form. Catalogers review these summaries, and if they adhere fully to CIP 
criteria for summaries (See Appendix B), they add them to the record via the TCEC module. 
Summaries that do not meet the criteria are deleted. Catalogers do not edit these summaries and 
publishers are not permitted to submit changes for these summaries. Publishers strive to apply the 
guidelines carefully because they know these summaries, when added to the catalog record, not 
only provide readers fuller information about the content of the work but also greater exposure for 
the title as the additional vocabulary in the summary is made available on the Internet for keyword 
searching. 


ECIP Partnership Program. 

The ECIP system has also enabled the ECIP Cataloging Partnership program that in turn enables 
other libraries to assist in the CIP cataloging process. This was not possible earlier because the 
paper CIPs could not be distributed to other libraries and returned to the Library of Congress in a 
timely manner The only exceptions to this were clinical medical titles that could be transported by 
courier service from Capitol Hill to the nearby National Library of Medicine. NLM has for many 
years performed complete cataloging for clinical medical CIPs. After NLM completes its 
cataloging, including assigning MeSH headings, the applications and accompanying records are 
returned to the Library of Congress where Library of Congress subject headings are added. 

The ECIP Cataloging Partnership program emulates and is an extension of the NLM model. 

With the CIP process performed within an electronic environment, geographic and transportation 
constraints are no longer a barrier to the participation of other libraries in the CIP process. LC staff 
therefore identified libraries that share the following characteristics: 

(1) the library participates in the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC)-this ensures 
that the quality of cataloging is consistent with Library of Congress standards, 

(2) the library uses the Voyager ILS system (as does the Library)—this would minimize data 
transfer problems; and 

(3) the library is associated with a publisher (a university press related to the same 
institution as the library)—this would minimize publisher concerns while providing practical and 
perhaps political advantages for both the library and the publisher 

Cornell University and Northwestern University meet these criteria and have now been ECIP 
cataloging partners for over a year The University of Wisconsin will begin shortly. The National 
Agriculture Library also became a partner within the past year following the NLM mode of 
operation, i.e , NAL catalogs works defined by subject (namely, works about agriculture) rather 
than by an affiliated publisher 


16 


PCN Program Mission. 

A Library of Congress Control Number (LCCN) is a unique identification number assigned by the 
Library to the catalog record for each book it catalogs. This practice began in 1895 with the 
assignment of 98-1 to the collected works of Honore de Balzac. LCCNs played an important role 
in facilitating the sale and distribution of catalog card sets to libraries. Publishers weekly , 
Cumulative book index, and other book trade serials published them as a service to libraries who in 
turn used them when completing their card order slips. In 1951, Duell, Sloan and Pearce began to 
print the LCCN on the verso of the title page. J P Lippincott and others followed suit. This 
initiated the practice of “preassigning” blocks of LCCNs to publishers, a practice that continued 
into the 1970s when it was gradually replaced by individual preassignment of LCCNs by the 
Library, as the block approach had led to duplicate assignments 

While the Library no longer provides a card service, the LCCN continues to serve as a unique 
inventory number of the catalog record Libraries and book dealers use the LCCN printed in the 
book to facilitate book processing, copy cataloging, acquisitions and other tasks. The PCN 
program also provides a valuable source of initial bibliographic records and books for the Library. 

The PCN Process. 

From the late 1970s until 1997, a publisher obtained an LCCN for a forthcoming book by 
completing and submitting a single page application form and the corresponding title page to the 
Library. CIP Division staff reviewed the application for eligibility and completeness and then 
created an initial bibliographic record. During this process an LCCN was assigned to the record. 
The number was then sent to the publisher to be printed on the verso of the title page preceded by 
the legend: Library of Congress Control Number. 

Publishers participating in the PCN program are obligated to send a copy of the book to the Library 
immediately upon publication. 

The EPCN Program. 

In 1997, the Electronic PCN (EPCN) system was implemented EPCN enabled publishers to use 
the Internet to submit applications. The publisher first completed an online Application to 
Participate form. Upon submission, CIP staff reviewed the form. If the publisher is eligible, the 
publisher is sent an account number and password. This enables the publisher to access the 
appropriate form to request LCCNs. 

The EPCN program is almost entirely automated The publisher completes an application form that 
includes basic information about the book’s identity (title, author, place of publication, date, etc.). 
Library staff review the submitted application for eligibility, accuracy, and completeness and with a 
few clicks of the mouse, an LCCN is assigned and the information provided by the publisher is 
converted to a MARC record complete with appropriate punctuation, delimiters, and codes The 


17 


assigned LCCN is then emailed to the publisher. 

Selection & Recommending. 

Selection Librarians have traditionally worked closely with the CIP Division because it is a logical 
and convenient place, early in the work stream, to review new book receipts. Publishers 
participating in the CIP and PCN programs send to the CIP Division books to meet CIP and PCN 
program requirements. The Copyright Office sends all English language works to the CIP Division 
because CIP staff provide initial searching and processing services for these new receipts. 

Among the Selection Librarians' broad range of complex duties is the responsibility to select works 
for the Library’s collections guided by the Library’s mission statement, collection policy guidelines, 
evidence of past practice and key documents such as the Library Online Acquisitions Manual. This 
responsibility also includes determining the number of copies to be selected as well as determining 
the priority by which the selected works will be cataloged 

In the course of these activities the Selection Librarians also provide the CIP program a valuable 
quality control service as their close and constant scrutiny of incoming CIP receipts enables them to 
identify works for which CIP data was provided but upon examination appear to be self-published 
works or works that appear unlikely to be widely acquired by the nations libraries. When they 
identify such works they search them in OCLC and other databases to confirm their suspicions and 
then provide their findings to CIP management. CIP management in turn takes steps to have the 
relevant publishers suspended from the CIP or PCN programs 

Recommending Officers also work closely with the CIP Divisions for the same basic reason as the 
Selection Librarians, i.e , because it is a logical and convenient place, early in the work stream, to 
review new book receipts. Recommending Officers are often reference librarians whose 
recommending duties are additional to their other responsibilities. As Recommending Officers they 
usually have a specific subject or group of subjects for which they are responsible. Their 
responsibilities include a range of tasks to ensure the currency and depth of a specific area of the 
Library’s collections. This includes recommending appropriate titles for acquisition. 


18 


Compilation of Data - CIP Survey for MARC Customers 


The MARC Survey consisted of 34 questions. (See Appendix A) The first set of questions 
(questions 1 to 4) was designed to obtain basic profile information about the nature and size of the 
responding business. The second set of questions (questions 5 to 24) focused on the use and value 
of CIP data and the current CIP product. The third set of questions (questions 25 to 32) focused 
on possible future enhancements. The fourth set of questions (questions 33 to 34) focused on the 
Electronic Preassigned Control Number Program (EPCN). 

The MARC Survey was distributed as an email attachment in both Word and WordPerfect. 
This survey was sent to 36 companies and institutions who currently subscribe to the Library’s 
Cataloging Distribution Service MARC Distribution Service. Promotional efforts for the MARC 
Survey consisted of email messages to the target audience, namely, the subscribers of the CDS 
MARC service. Follow-up emails were sent four weeks after the initial email and in some 
instances phone calls were also made to encourage subscribers to respond. 

Of the 36 MARC customers who were sent a survey, 33 responded. All of the data 
obtained from the survey responses (with the exception of comments) appears below. Respondents 
had the opportunity to provide comments in several areas of the survey. 

Recurring themes with sample comments follow: 

There were 5 comments total in the survey One user observed: 

"The best thing you could do for our customers is to speed up the information stream. ” 

Regarding the data that appears below, please note that in some instances the total 
percentage of responses exceeds 100%. This results from respondents checking more than one 
option for questions with multiple options. Additionally, all numbers expressed as percentages 
were rounded to the nearest whole number, so that the total response for any given question could 
be slightly below or slightly above 100%. 


Profile of Customers 



Library 

4 

10% 

Bibliographic utility 

8 

20% 

Book wholesaler 

5 

12% 

System vendor 

6 

15% 

Bibliographic product vendor 

8 

20% 

Other: 

10 

24% 


The average size of the customer databases is 13.3 million bibliographic records Customers 
reported adding an average of 1.4 million bibliographic records to their databases in the last year. 


19 


Customer Products and Services Using CIP records 

More than two dozen products and services were listed by survey respondents. All of these 
products and services fell into one or more of the broad categories listed below: 

• Library catalogs - from printed catalog cards to OPACs, and from small libraries to 
large library consortiums 

• Bibliographies - excellent source of authoritative information 

• Alert services - upcoming publications, often sorted by subject or class number 

• Collections development / selection 

Use of CIP Data and CIP cataloging 

78% (21) use LC CIP cataloging before the book is published 
15% (4) do not 
7% (2) replied “unknown” 

46% (11) reported that they use LC CIP Data printed in the book 
46% (11) do not 
8% (2) replied “unknown” 

Usefulness of Specific Data Elements 

Medical subject headings : For records with both NLM-assigned subject headings and LC 
subject headings, 

• 57% said LC subject headings are very useful 

• 13% useful 

• 7% somewhat useful 

• 10% not useful 

• 13% not applicable 

• 27% said NLM subject headings are very useful 

• 20% useful 

• 10% somewhat useful 

• 23% not useful 

• 20% not applicable 


20 




Juvenile subject headings : 


• 30% indicated that LC juvenile subject headings for juvenile fiction are very useful 

• 20% useful 

• 10% somewhat useful 

• 17% not useful 

• 23% not applicable 

• 33% indicated that LC juvenile subject headings for juvenile non-fiction are very 

useful. 

• 17% useful 

• 10% somewhat useful 

• 17% not useful 

• 23% not applicable 

Genre headings : 

• 24% rated as very useful genre headings used on records created for American 
works of fiction 

• 28% useful 

• 17% somewhat useful 

• 10% not useful 

• 21% not applicable 

Series statements : 

• 60% said that series statements are very useful 

• 20% useful 

• 10% somewhat useful 

• 0% not useful 

• 10% not applicable 

Summary notes 

• 50% said that summary notes in general are very useful 
25% useful 

• 11% somewhat useful 

• 7% not useful 

• 7% not applicable 

• 33% said that summary notes for juvenile fiction are very useful 

• 17% useful 

• 13% somewhat useful 


21 










• 13% not useful 

• 23% not applicable 

• 30% said that summary notes for juvenile non-fiction are very useful 

• 13% useful 

• 17% somewhat useful 

• 17% not useful 

• 23% not applicable 

• Publisher-supplied summary notes were rated as 20% very useful 

• 43% useful 

• 23% somewhat useful 

• 7% not useful 

• 7% not applicable 

Table of contents : 

• As a MARC field within the bibliographic records: 

• 43% very useful 

• 30% useful 

• 17% somewhat useful. 

• 7% not useful 

• 3% not applicable 

• For hyperlinks to table of contents: 

• 40% very useful 

• 27% useful 

• 30% somewhat useful 

• 0% not useful 

• 3% not applicable 


Hyperlinks : 

• Publisher description: 

• 30% very useful 

• 23% useful 

• 33% somewhat useful 

• 10% not useful 

• 3% not applicable 

• Contributor biographical information: 

• 30% very useful 

• 27% useful 

• 37% somewhat useful 


22 









• 3% not useful 

• 3% not applicable 

Sample text: 

• 17% very useful 

• 28% useful 

• 24% somewhat useful 

• 17% not useful 

• 14% not applicable 

Book reviews: 

• 28% very useful 

• 24% useful 

• 31% somewhat useful 

• 10% not useful 

• 7% not applicable 


CIP Data in the Book 



Very 

Useful 

Useful 

Somewhat 

Useful 

Not 

useful 

Not 

Applicable 

LCCN 

42% 

12% 

15% 

4% 

27% 

ISBN 

64% 

12% 

4% 

4% 

16% 

LC Call Number 

35% 

12% 

12% 

4% 

38% 

NLM Call Number 

12% 

15% 

23% 

8% 

42% 

Decimal Classification No. 

52% 

4% 

16% 

4% 

24% 

Main Entry 

56% 

8% 

12% 

4% 

20% 

Title 

56% 

8% 

8% 

8% 

20% 

Edition Statement 

44% 

12% 

8% 

12% 

24% 

Series 

48% 

12% 

8% 

8% 

24% 

Juv. Lit. Summary Notes 

20% 

8% 

20% 

8% 

44% 

Other Summary Notes 

12% 

27% 

19% 

8% 

35% 

Bib Refs and/or Index Notes 

20% 

16% 

24% 

12% 

28% 

LC Subject Headings 

46% 

8% 

19% 

4% 

23% 

LC Juvenile Subject Headings 

27% 

4% 

8% 

15% 

46% 


23 
























NLM Subject Headings 

8% 

15% 

23% 

15% 

38% 

Added Entries 

44% 

12% 

16% 

4% 

24% 


When asked if they would need some indication that a CIP record existed for a book if the 
CIP Data was not printed in the book, 


36% said yes 
43% said no 

21% said they weren’t sure 


LC CIP Cataloging: pre-publication MARC records 



Very 

Useful 

Useful 

Somewhat 

Useful 

Not 

useful 

Not 

Applicable 

ISBN 

93% 

4% 

4% 

0% 

0% 

LC Call Number 

48% 

17% 

10% 

7% 

17% 

NLM Call Number 

24% 

10% 

24% 

17% 

24% 

Decimal Classification No. 

63% 

19% 

15% 

4% 

0% 

Main Entry 

89% 

11% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

Title 

96% 

4% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

Edition Statement 

86% 

11% 

4% 

0% 

0% 

Series 

71% 

29% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

Juv. Lit Summary Notes 

32% 

14% 

11% 

21% 

21% 

Other Summary Notes 

21% 

34% 

28% 

14% 

3% 

Bib Refs and/or Index Notes 

32% 

36% 

29% 

4% 

0% 

Table of Contents 

46% 

29% 

21% 

4% 

0% 

LC Subject Headings 

62% 

17% 

14% 

3% 

3% 

LC Juvenile Subject Headings 

28% 

24% 

7% 

17% 

24% 

NLM Subject Headings 

17% 

24% 

24% 

14% 

21% 

Added Entries 

64% 

21% 

11% 

4% 

0% 

Projected Publication Date 

39% 

18% 

29% 

7% 

7% 


24 
































LC CIP Cataloging: post-publication MARC records 



Very 

Useful 

Useful 

Somewhat 

Useful 

Not 

useful 

Not 

Applicable 

ISBN 

100% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

LC Call Number 

59% 

17% 

3% 

7% 

14% 

NLM Call Number 

30% 

17% 

10% 

20% 

23% 

Decimal Classification No. 

76% 

17% 

7% 

0% 

0% 

Main Entry 

93% 

7% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

Title 

97% 

3% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

Edition Statement 

83% 

17% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

Physical Description 

79% 

14% 

7% 

0% 

0% 

Series 

79% 

21% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

Juv. Lit. Summary Notes 

31% 

17% 

10% 

21% 

21% 

Other Summary Notes 

23% 

33% 

27% 

13% 

3% 

Bib. Refs, and/or Index Notes 

41% 

41% 

17% 

0% 

0% 

Table of Contents 

59% 

24% 

14% 

3% 

0% 

LC Subject Headings 

73% 

13% 

10% 

0% 

3% 

LC Juvenile Subject Headings 

30% 

20% 

7% 

20% 

23% 

NLM Subject Headings 

23% 

23% 

17% 

17% 

20% 

Added Entries 

76% 

10% 

14% 

0% 

0% 


Bibliographic accuracy of CIP Cataloging 



Excellent 

Very 

Good 

Good 

Poor 

Not 

Applicable 

ISBN 

43% 

43% 

9% 

0% 

4% 

LC Call Number 

9% 

48% 

9% 

0% 

35% 

NLM Call Number 

9% 

18% 

9% 

9% 

55% 


25 



































Decimal Classification No. 

17% 

52% 

9% 

4% 

17% 

Main Entry 

39% 

26% 

30% 

0% 

4% 

Title 

22% 

39% 

30% 

4% 

4% 

Edition Statement 

18% 

50% 

23% 

0% 

9% 

Physical Description 

9% 

17% 

13% 

17% 

43% 

Series 

13% 

48% 

22% 

9% 

9% 

Juv. Lit. Summary Notes 

17% 

35% 

4% 

0% 

43% 

Other Summary Notes 

9% 

39% 

13% 

13% 

26% 

Bib Refs, and/or Index Notes 

13% 

30% 

22% 

9% 

26% 

Table of Contents 

9% 

30% 

22% 

17% 

22% 

LC Subject Headings 

22% 

43% 

17% 

4% 

13% 

LC Juvenile Subject Headings 

9% 

39% 

4% 

4% 

43% 

NLM Subject Headings 

5% 

18% 

14% 

5% 

59% 

Added Entries 

26% 

30% 

22% 

4% 

17% 


Typographical accuracy 

• 25% of respondents rated the typographical accuracy as excellent 

• 50% very good 

• 17% good 

• 8% not applicable 


Importance of benefits of CIP Program to the organization 



Very 

Important 

Important 

Some 

Importance 

No 

Importance 

Not 

Applicable 

Improvement in quality of 
cataloging 

46% 

29% 

11% 

0% 

14% 

Standardization of 
bibliographic records 

50% 

25% 

11% 

0% 

14% 


26 





























Redirection of funds for 
other purposes 

19% 

4% 

15% 

8% 

54% 

Speed books to users 

27% 

23% 

8% 

0% 

42% 

Enhance products or 
services 

50% 

18% 

14% 

4% 

14% 

Speed products or services 

54% 

14% 

14% 

4% 

14% 

Other 

100% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 


CIP Verification 

When asked what their reaction would be if LC were to limit the upgrading and completing 
of CIP records to only those books being kept in the LC collections (meaning that approximately 
10% of the 54,000 LC CIP records each year would not be updated by LC), 48% said this would 
be acceptable, and 28% said it would not be acceptable. When asked if it would be acceptable to 
them if LC were to discontinue updating/completing CIP records upon receipt of the published 
book, the answer—60% to 10%—was no 


Future Products 

• MARC customers were asked to evaluate the positive impact on their operations if LC were 
to enhance the CIP record with a variety of publisher-provided data. 



Significant 

Positive 

Impact 

Positive 

Impact 

Negative 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

Not 

Applicable / 
No Impact 

Book jacket image 

31% 

38% 

3% 

3% 

24% 

Book jacket blurb 

36% 

32% 

4% 

4% 

25% 

Book index(es) 

34% 

38% 

7% 

3% 

17% 

Sample text 

21% 

38% 

3% 

7% 

31% 

Additional author info 

21% 

48% 

3% 

7% 

21% 

Book reviews 

32% 

43% 

0% 

4% 

21% 

Publisher homepage 

10% 

41% 

3% 

7% 

38% 

URL for online purchase 

10% 

31% 

7% 

10% 

41% 


27 


























Price 

41% 

24% 

3% 

0% 

31% 


MARC customers were also asked about the positive impact on their operations if LC were 
to make eligible for the CIP Program a variety of materials currently out-of-scope. 



Significant 

Positive 

Impact 

Positive 

Impact 

Negative 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

Not 

Applicable / 
No Impact 

Audio discs/tapes 

37% 

30% 

0% 

4% 

30% 

Video discs/tapes 

41% 

22% 

0% 

7% 

30% 

Slide sets/filmstrips 

15% 

26% 

7% 

0% 

52% 

Multimedia packages 

33% 

30% 

0% 

0% 

37% 

Mass market paperbacks 

30% 

22% 

4% 

0% 

44% 

Textbooks below college 
level 

7% 

44% 

4% 

0% 

44% 

Microforms originally from 
other formats 

11% 

41% 

4% 

0% 

44% 

Musical scores 

32% 

29% 

0% 

0% 

39% 

Consumable educational 
materials 

18% 

43% 

0% 

0% 

39% 

E-books 

46% 

36% 

0% 

0% 

18% 

Self-published books 

15% 

33% 

4% 

0% 

48% 

Prominent non-US 
publishers 

57% 

25% 

0% 

4% 

14% 


MARC customers were asked to evaluate ten types of materials currently within scope for 
the CIP Program and assess the impact on their operations if these types of publications 
were excluded from CIP 



Significant 

Positive 

Impact 

Positive 

Impact 

Negative 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

Not 

Applicable / 
No Impact 

Large print editions 

0% 

4% 

26% 

30% 

41% 


28 

































Clinical medical titles 

0% 

0% 

36% 

32% 

32% 

Non-English publications 

4% 

0% 

29% 

37% 

32% 

"How to” or do-it-yourself 
manuals 

4% 

0% 

25% 

32% 

39% 

College level or above 
textbooks 

0% 

0% 

29% 

29% 

43% 

Devotional/inspirational 

books 

0% 

0% 

29% 

25% 

46% 

Phonics books 

0% 

4% 

29% 

18% 

50% 

Repackaged editions, incl. 
boxed sets 

0% 

0% 

43% 

7% 

50% 

Children’s books that are 
tie-ins 

0% 

7% 

21% 

25% 

46% 

Chapter books for beginning 
readers 

4% 

7% 

18% 

21% 

50% 


Series Authority Records 

MARC customers were asked to evaluate the impact on their operations if LC did not 
provide new series authority records until the published book was received and the cataloging was 
completed. 


• 0% said this would have a significant positive impact. 

• 8% positive impact 

• 8% negative impact 

• 27% significant negative impact 

• 58% no impact / not applicable 


EPCN 


MARC customers were asked if they would be interested in receiving the brief records 
created from publisher-provided information for titles processed through the Electronic Preassigned 
Control Number program. 

• 56% responded yes 

• 44% responded no 


29 

















Overall Importance of CIP Program 

• 58% said that the CIP Program was very important 

• 21% important 

• 13% some importance 

• 0% no importance 

• 8% not applicable 


30 



Compilation of Data - CIP Survey for Libraries 


The Library Survey (See Appendix A) consisted of 56 questions. The first set of questions 
(questions 1 to 8) was designed to obtain basic profile information about the nature and size of the 
responding library. The second set of questions (questions 9 to 54) focused on the use and value of 
CIP data and possible future enhancements. The third set of questions (questions 55 to 56) focused 
on the Electronic Preassigned Control Number (EPCN) Program 

Unlike the MARC Survey, the Library Survey was an online survey hosted by Survey 
Monkey and accessible from the Electronic CIP homepage. This survey was opened May 31, 2006 
and remained open until August 18, 2006. During this period of time it was marketed broadly with 
the assistance of the American Library Association, and in particular the Office of Executive 
Director, the Office of Research and Statistics, all appropriate ALA divisions and ALA committees, 
as well as ALA Unit Managers, and the ALA Washington Office. Public service announcements 
promoting the survey also appeared in American Libraries, American Libraries Direct, American 
Libraries Online, Cognotes ; as well as Library Journal, Library Journal.com, LJXpress, U 
Academic Newswire, and School Library Journal. 

CRG obtained a total of 1,865 responses. All of the data obtained from the survey 
responses with the exception of comments appears below Respondents had the opportunity to 
provide comments in several areas of the survey The comments, while numerous and often 
diverse, included a number of recurring themes providing clear evidence of views common to the 
library community. 

Recurring themes with sample comments follow: 

CIP is essential to supporting the cataloging programs of many libraries . 

# 78 “The providing of CIP data to our library via MARC or in the books 
themselves is crucial to the operation of our library! ” 

#22 “It makes my life easier when I need to add materials to our catalog—no 
original cataloging for me :) Thank you"! ” 

#42 “Could NOT do the job without it! (I don 7 have a library degree & am the 
sole employee) ” 

#104 “There are still numerous small libraries that cannot, therefore, do not have 
access to online cataloging. For them, CIP in the book is essential. ” 

#109 “Dewey numbers Helping nonprofessionals run small town libraries. ” 

CIP saves libraries money and resources . 

#85 “In an limited staff environment, LC CIP is helpful in speeding up the 
cataloging process, so we can spend more time assisting patrons. ” 

#3 “ Without the CIP program, our workload would be significantly increased. ” 


31 




~61 “For a library with no budget, CIP is what allows us to create a catalog at 
all ” 

~28 “Cost and time effective for school libraries with poor local funding. ” 

#43 “ We would have to hire more catalogers if we didn 7 have access to CIP 
records. ” 

CIP speeds book processing . 

it235 “CIP allows our library to get the books to the shelf quickly with good 
quality cataloging. ” 

#68 “Speed in getting materials to the patron as it saves me from doing original 
cataloging. ” 

#44 “Saves so much time for ‘ stand-alone' libraries. ” 

CIP contributes to standardization of catalog records . 

# 72 “CIP has done more than any other service to help small libraries standardize 
their cataloging and to serve their patrons on something on a par with those of 
larger libraries. ” 

#39 “Useful to double check validity ofpublisher or jobber cataloging. ” 

#46 “I find it very useful in teaching cataloging to staff in small libraries around 
the state where cards are still typed for catalogs. ” 

#140 “I use the book CIP to check that cataloging processing staff haven 7 made a 
classification typing error on the book's spine or inside labels. Also with patrons to 
show them how to find other books on the subject. ” 

CIP helps readers access information 

#109 “Use of computers is inhibiting students from seeing the broader picture and 
making connections to multiple subjects. The CIP makes those connections clear. ” 
#23 “Summary makes for an easy ‘summary ’for the kids to read when there is no 
book jacket with information. ” 

#160 “My son, a seventh grader, uses the CIP information to determine if the book 
in hand is a suitable resource. As far as my own work, I sometimes use the CIP 
information to clarify’ or double-check info. ” 

Regarding the data that appears below, please note that in some instances the total 
percentage of responses exceeds 100%. This results from respondents checking more than one 
option for questions with multiple options. Additionally, all numbers expressed as percentages 
were rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent, so that the total response for any given question 
could be slightly below or slightly above 100%. 


32 





Profile oflibraries 


Academic 

470 

25.4% 

Public 

555 

30.0% 

School: Pre-K - Elementary 

286 

15.4% 

School: Middle - High School 

263 

14.2% 

Special 

96 

5.2% 

Other 

183 

9.9% 


Size of library collections 


Under 5,000 
5,000 - 15,000 
15,000- 50,000 
50,000- 100,000 
100,000-250,000 
250,000 - 500,000 
500,000- 1,000,000 
1,000,000- 5,000,000 
Over 5,000,000 


65 

3.5% 

474 

25.8% 

378 

20.6% 

198 

10.8% 

246 

13.4% 

166 

9.0% 

107 

5.8% 

162 

8.8% 

39 

2.1% 


Sources of LC CIP cataloging 


Auto-Graphics 

36 

1.9% 

Baker & Taylor 

277 

15.0% 

BookWhere 

26 

1.4% 

Bound to Stay Bound 

212 

11.5% 

Brodart 

75 

4.1% 

Coutts Library Services 

8 

0.4% 

Follett Library Resources 

473 

25.6% 

Ingram Library Services 

68 

3.7% 

LC catalog 

689 

37.3% 

LC CIP Data printed in the book 

1046 

56.6% 

Library consortium 

196 

10.6% 

MARCIVE 

105 

5.7% 


33 
















OCLC 

937 

50.7% 

Polaris Library System 

14 

0.8% 

RLG 

48 

2.6% 

TLC - The Library Corporation 

80 

4.3% 

YBP Library Services 

58 

3.1% 

Z39.50 search 

306 

16.6% 

Other 

231 

12.5% 


Use of CIP Data and CIP cataloging 

72.6% (1241) of responding libraries do not use CIP cataloging before the book is 
published. However, 90.1% (1545) report that they use the CIP Data printed in the published 
book. 

Usefulness of Specific Data Elements 

Medical subject headings : For records with both NLM-assigned subject headings and LC 
subject headings, 

• 27.6% said LC subject headings are very useful 

• 13.5% useful 

• 7.6% somewhat useful 

• 2.2% not useful 

• 49.1% not applicable 

• 7.4% said NLM subject headings are very useful 

• 10.5% useful 

• 12.9% somewhat useful 

• 14.7% not useful 

• 54.5% not applicable 

Juvenile subject headings : 

• 39.2% indicated that LC juvenile subject headings for juvenile fiction are very useful 
25.8% useful 

• 11.6% somewhat useful 

• 7% not useful 

• 16.4% not applicable 


34 















• 45.3% indicated that LC juvenile subject headings for juvenile non-fiction are very 
useful. 

22.7% useful 

• 9.7% somewhat useful 

• 6.2% not useful 

• 16% not applicable 

Summary notes : 

• 53.1% said that summary notes in general are very useful 

• 30.4% useful 

• 12.6% somewhat useful 

• 1.8% not useful 

• 2.2% not applicable 

• 52.9% said that summary notes for juvenile fiction are very useful 

• 22.4% useful 

• 7.4% somewhat useful 

• 3% not useful 

• 14.3% not applicable 

• 50% said that summary notes for juvenile non-fiction are very useful 

• 24.8% useful 

• 8.6% somewhat useful 

• 2.5% not useful 

• 14.2% not applicable 

• 23.7% said that publisher-supplied summary notes are very useful 
39% useful 

• 29.3% somewhat useful 

• 5.5% not useful 

• 2.4% not applicable 

Table of contents : 

• As a MARC field within the bibliographic records: 

• 40.1% very useful 

• 31.2% useful 

• 21.2% somewhat useful 

• 4.3% not useful 

• 3.2% not applicable 


35 










• For hyperlinks to table of contents: 

• 20.3% very useful 

• 24.9% useful 

• 27% somewhat useful 

• 17% not useful 

• 10.8% not applicable 
Hyperlinks : 

• Publisher description: 

• 10.5% very useful 
21.7% useful 

• 32.5% somewhat useful 

• 23.8% not useful 

• 11.5% not applicable 

• Contributor biographical information: 

• 10.2% very useful 

• 19.7% useful 

• 33.1% somewhat useful 

• 24.5% not useful 

• 12.4% not applicable 

• Sample text: 

• 11% very useful 

• 20% useful 

• 29.8% somewhat useful 

• 26.4% not useful 

• 12.8% not applicable 

• Book reviews 

• 23.3% very useful 

• 25.8% useful 

• 24.6% somewhat useful 

• 16.4% not useful 

• 10% not applicable 

Genre headings : 

• 50 3% rated as very useful genre headings used on records created for American 
works of fiction 

• 26.7% useful 

• 10 5% somewhat useful 

• 3.5% not useful 

• 8 9% not applicable 


36 






Usefulness of CIP Data in the Book 


for these activities: 

Very 

Useful 

Useful 

Somewhat 

Useful 

Not 

Useful 

Not 

Applicable 

Acquisitions 

15% 

17% 

22% 

16% 

30% 

Cataloging 

64% 

22% 

10% 

2% 

2% 

Routing books to appropriate 
staff 

14% 

18% 

16% 

16% 

36% 

Public service 

19% 

20% 

22% 

13% 

26% 


for these data elements: 

Very 

Useful 

Useful 

Somewhat 

Useful 

Not 

useful 

Not 

Applicable 

LCCN 

32% 

24% 

19% 

16% 

10% 

ISBN 

72% 

18% 

6% 

2% 

2% 

LC Call Number 

35% 

15% 

12% 

15% 

23% 

NLM Call Number 

5% 

5% 

10% 

25% 

56% 

Decimal Classification No. 

60% 

11% 

5% 

7% 

17% 

Main Entry 

69% 

20% 

7% 

2% 

1% 

Title 

70% 

20% 

7% 

3% 

1% 

Edition Statement 

59% 

24% 

12% 

3% 

1% 

Series 

68% 

22% 

7% 

2% 

1% 

Juv. Lit. Summary Notes 

47% 

21% 

12% 

5% 

15% 

Other Summary Notes 

40% 

30% 

21% 

6% 

3% 

Bib Refs, and/or Index Notes 

30% 

29% 

26% 

12% 

2% 

LC Subject Headings 

65% 

21% 

8% 

2% 

4% 

LC Juvenile Subject Headings 

44% 

19% 

11% 

7% 

18% 

NLM Subject Headings 

9% 

11% 

15% 

17% 

49% 

Added Entries 

48% 

29% 

16% 

4% 

2% 


37 


































Usefulness of LC CIP cataloging in MARC format 


for these activities: 

Very 

Useful 

Useful 

Somewhat 

Useful 

Not 

useful 

Not 

applicable 

Acquisitions 

30% 

19% 

14% 

9% 

27% 

Cataloging 

75% 

14% 

4% 

1% 

6% 

Public service 

23% 

19% 

18% 

12% 

27% 


Updating/completing the CIP record 

Usefulness of LC CIP cataloging after LC has received the book and updated the CIP 
record: 


• 55.2% very useful 

• 22.6% useful 

• 11.4% somewhat useful 

• 5.1% not useful 

• 5.6% not applicable 

Do you upgrade/complete LC CIP records in your local catalog? 

• 73.6% responded yes 

• 26.4% responded no 

If yes, do you also upgrade the record in your bibliographic utility 9 

• 30.3% said yes 

• 26.6% said no 

• 43.1 % not applicable 

Whether you upgrade the CIP record or download the CIP record that another library has 
upgraded, do you ultimately download the LC-completed CIP record when it becomes 
available 9 

• 44.5% said yes 

• 55.5% said no 


38 












LC CIP Cataloging: /?/*<?-publieation MARC records 



Very 

Useful 

Useful 

Somewhat 

Useful 

Not 

useful 

Not 

Applicable 

ISBN 

58% 

13% 

5% 

2% 

22% 

LC Call Number 

29% 

14% 

11% 

10% 

36% 

NLM Call Number 

5% 

5% 

9% 

18% 

63% 

Decimal Classification No. 

36% 

12% 

7% 

9% 

37% 

Main Entry 

51% 

18% 

7% 

2% 

21% 

Title 

54% 

18% 

5% 

2% 

21% 

Edition Statement 

46% 

20% 

10% 

3% 

22% 

Series 

49% 

19% 

8% 

3% 

21% 

Juv. Lit. Summary Notes 

29% 

17% 

13% 

7% 

35% 

Other Summary Notes 

26% 

23% 

20% 

7% 

24% 

Bib. Refs, and/or Index Notes 

23% 

21% 

21% 

12% 

23% 

Table of Contents 

25% 

23% 

21% 

8% 

23% 

LC Subject Headings 

48% 

19% 

7% 

3% 

23% 

LC Juvenile Subject Headings 

29% 

16% 

10% 

8% 

37% 

NLM Subject Headings 

7% 

7% 

12% 

15% 

58% 

Added Entries 

35% 

22% 

13% 

7% 

23% 

Projected Publication Date 

27% 

21% 

19% 

9% 

24% 


LC CIP Cataloging: /wsf-publication MARC records 



Very 

Useful 

Useful 

Somewhat 

Useful 

Not 

useful 

Not 

Applicable 

ISBN 

75% 

14% 

4% 

1% 

6% 

LC Call Number 

45% 

15% 

8% 

10% 

23% 

NLM Call Number 

8% 

7% 

10% 

19% 

57% 


39 



































Decimal Classification No. 

56% 

12% 

4% 

7% 

21% 

Main Entry 

73% 

18% 

3% 

1% 

5% 

Title 

75% 

17% 

3% 

1% 

5% 

Edition Statement 

65% 

21% 

8% 

1% 

5% 

Physical Description 

59% 

22% 

10% 

3% 

5% 

Series 

69% 

20% 

5% 

1% 

5% 

Juv. Lit. Summary Notes 

46% 

20% 

10% 

4% 

19% 

Other Summary Notes 

43% 

29% 

17% 

5% 

7% 

Bib. Refs, and/or Index Notes 

38% 

29% 

19% 

7% 

6% 

Table of Contents 

40% 

28% 

18% 

7% 

6% 

LC Subject Headings 

68% 

17% 

5% 

2% 

8% 

LC Juvenile Subject Headings 

44% 

17% 

9% 

7% 

22% 

NLM Subject Headings 

10% 

10% 

12% 

16% 

52% 

Added Entries 

55% 

23% 

12% 

3% 

6% 


Bibliographic accuracy of CIP Cataloging 



Excellent 

Very 

Good 

Good 

Poor 

Not 

Applicable 

ISBN 

59% 

30% 

8% 

0% 

3% 

LC Call Number 

31% 

24% 

11% 

0% 

34% 

NLM Call Number 

7% 

8% 

5% 

0% 

80% 

Decimal Classification No. 

24% 

35% 

13% 

0% 

28% 

Main Entry 

49% 

36% 

13% 

0% 

2% 

Title 

49% 

34% 

15% 

1% 

2% 

Edition Statement 

47% 

33% 

17% 

1% 

3% 

Physical Description 

31% 

28% 

20% 

n% 

10% 

Series 

39% 

36% 

20% 

2% 

2% 


40 




































Juv. Lit. Summary Notes 

31% 

29% 

17% 

1% 

23% 

Other Summary Notes 

29% 

33% 

24% 

2% 

12% 

Bib Refs, and/or Index Notes 

29% 

29% 

26% 

4% 

11% 

Table of Contents 

27% 

30% 

26% 

5% 

12% 

LC Subject Headings 

44% 

35% 

14% 

1% 

7% 

LC Juvenile Subject Headings 

32% 

26% 

13% 

1% 

28% 

NLM Subject Headings 

10% 

9% 

8% 

1% 

72% 

Added Entries 

35% 

37% 

19% 

2% 

7% 


Typographical accuracy 

• 32% of respondents rated the typographical accuracy as excellent 

• 46% very good 

• 18% good 

• 3% not applicable 

Importance of benefits of CIP Program to the organization 



Very 

Important 

Important 

Some 

Importance 

No 

Importance 

Not 

Applicable 

Improvement in quality of 
cataloging 

63% 

27% 

8% 

1% 

1% 

Standardization of 
bibliographic records 

67% 

24% 

6% 

2% 

1% 

Redirection of funds for 
other purposes 

26% 

16% 

17% 

15% 

27% 

Speed books to users 

63% 

21% 

9% 

3% 

4% 

Enhance products or 
services 

30% 

21% 

19% 

10% 

20% 

Speed products or services 

34% 

20% 

18% 

10% 

18% 


41 



























Overall Importance of CIP Program 

• 66% said that the CIP Program was very important 

• 26% important 

• 7% some importance 

• 1% no importance 

• 0% not applicable 

Possible Future Products 

Interested in having LC send you MARC CIP records? 

• 38% said yes 

• 62% said no 

Interested in having LC send you MARC CIP records according to a profile? 

• 33.6% said yes 

• 66.4% said no 

If CIP Data does not appear in the printed book, do you need some indication in the book 
that an LC CIP record is available online? 

• 78% responded yes 

• 22% no 

Would a reduction in the number of CIP records LC updates/completes - ceasing to update 
records for books not kept in LC collections - be acceptable to you 9 

• 59 1% said yes 

• 40.9% no 

If LC were to limit the updating/completing of CIP records to only those books being kept 
in the LC collections (therefore excluding books such as large print editions), approximately 
10% of the 54,000 LC CIP records each year would not be updated by LC. Would this 
reduction in the number of LC-completed CIP records be acceptable to you 9 

• 59 1% said yes 

• 40.9% said no 


42 



If LC were to discontinue all updating/completing of LC CIP records upon receipt of the 
published book, would this be acceptable to you? 

• 24.4% said yes 

• 75 6% said no 


CIP record enhancement using publisher-supplied data - evaluate positive impact on your 
operations 



No 

impact 

Slight 

impact 

Some 

impact 

Significant 

impact 

Extremely 

positive 

impact 

Not 

applicable 

Book jacket image 

24% 

14% 

22% 

14% 

23% 

3% 

Book jacket blurb 

22% 

14% 

25% 

20% 

18% 

2% 

Book index(es) 

18% 

14% 

28% 

21% 

18% 

2% 

Sample text 

24% 

18% 

29% 

14% 

12% 

2% 

Additional author 
information 

16% 

18% 

34% 

18% 

13% 

1% 

Book reviews 

14% 

10% 

25% 

23% 

25% 

2% 

Publisher homepage 

33% 

26% 

23% 

9% 

6% 

2% 

URL for online 
purchase of book 

42% 

23% 

19% 

7% 

6% 

3% 

Price 

23% 

17% 

26% 

16% 

16% 

3% 


Including materials currently out-of-scope for CIP - evaluate positive impact on your 
operations 



No 

impact 

Slight 

impact 

Some 

impact 

Significant 

impact 

Extremely 

positive 

impact 

Not 

applicable 

Audio discs/tapes 

10% 

9% 

15% 

17% 

48% 

2% 

Video discs/tapes 

6% 

5% 

13% 

20% 

54% 

1% 

Multimedia packages 

12% 

11% 

20% 

17% 

37% 

4% 


43 




























Mass market 
paperbacks 

20% 

14% 

18% 

15% 

27% 

6% 

Textbooks below 
college level 

41% 

15% 

15% 

6% 

9% 

13% 

Microforms orig. 
publ. in other formats 

40% 

16% 

15% 

8% 

9% 

12% 

Musical scores 

41% 

11% 

13% 

7% 

13% 

15% 

Consumable 
educational materials 

34% 

18% 

17% 

10% 

11% 

10% 

E-books 

22% 

11% 

19% 

16% 

23% 

8% 

Self-published books 

26% 

21% 

20% 

13% 

14% 

6% 

Prominent non-U.S. 
publishers 

18% 

15% 

22% 

18% 

22% 

5% 


Excluding materials currently in-scope for CIP - evaluate negative impact on your 
operations 



No 

impact 

Slight 

impact 

Some 

impact 

Significant 

impact 

Severe 

impact 

Not 

applicable 

Large print editions 

36% 

15% 

17% 

15% 

10% 

8% 

Clinical medical titles 

51% 

12% 

10% 

6% 

3% 

19% 

Non-English titles 

25% 

18% 

22% 

17% 

10% 

8% 

“How to” or “do-it- 
yourself’ mauals 

23% 

18% 

21% 

20% 

13% 

6% 

College level or above 
textbooks 

37% 

16% 

16% 

12% 

6% 

13% 

Devotional or 
inspirational books 

32% 

17% 

19% 

15% 

9% 

8% 

Phonics books 

38% 

18% 

18% 

11% 

5% 

10% 

Repackaged editions, 
inch boxed sets 

29% 

21% 

24% 

14% 

6% 

7% 


44 































“Tie-ins” - juv. lit. 
books derived from 

TV, movies, etc. 

28% 

14% 

19% 

18% 

14% 

7% 

Chapter books (for 
beginning readers) 

26% 

9% 

12% 

21% 

25% 

7% 


Would your library be interested in enhancing LC CIP records with additional information 
by providing: 



No opinion 

Not 

interested 

Somewhat 

interested 

Interested 

Very 

interested 

Book jacket image 

20% 

35% 

20% 

14% 

11% 

Book jacket blurb 

20% 

34% 

24% 

14% 

8% 

Book index(es) 

19% 

33% 

24% 

15% 

8% 

Sample text 

20% 

39% 

23% 

13% 

6% 

Additional author 
information 

19% 

31% 

28% 

14% 

8% 

Book reviews 

18% 

30% 

22% 

17% 

13% 

Publisher homepage 

22% 

46% 

21% 

7% 

4% 

URL for online purchase 
ofbook 

22% 

53% 

16% 

6% 

3% 

Price 

19% 

35% 

22% 

14% 

9% 


Would your library be interested in becoming an ECIP cataloging partner and cataloging 
EClPs from specific publishers and/or within specific subject areas? 

• 17.5% expressed no opinion 

• 58 5% said they were not interested 

• 16.7% said they were somewhat interested 

• 5.3% said they were interested 

• 2% said they were very interested 


45 



























Compilation of Data - CIP Survey for Publishers 


The Publishers Survey consisted of 39 questions. (See Appendix A) The first set of 
questions (questions 1 to 25) was designed to obtain basic profile information about the nature and 
size of the respondent’s publishing firm. The second set of questions (questions 26 to 39) focused 
on the use and value of CIP data, the current CIP product, and possible future enhancements. 

The Publishers Survey, like the Library Survey, was an online survey hosted by Survey 
Monkey and accessible from the Electronic CIP homepage. This survey was opened May 31, 2006 
and remained open until August 18, 2006. The marketing effort for the publisher survey was more 
focused than that of the Library Survey. Because CRG wanted particularly to obtain data from 
publishers currently participating in the CIP program, a promotional insert was included with CIP 
data mailed to publishers who submit applications by the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial 
carrier. Promotional text was also included in all CIP data emailed to publishers who submit 
applications electronically via the ECIP system. Access to the survey was also featured 
prominently on the ECIP homepage. 

While the intent of the survey was to obtain feedback from publishers participating in the 
CIP program, a number of publishers who participate only in the EPCN program also completed 
the survey. These respondents often expressed unhappiness about not being able to participate in 
the CIP program. 

CRG obtained a total of 655 responses. All of the data obtained from the survey responses 
with the exception of comments appears below. Respondents had the opportunity to provide 
comments in several areas of the survey. 

Recurring themes and samples of these comments follow: 

CIP lends credibilitv/validitv to the book . 

#97 “Appearance of professionalism industry recognition 
#57 “Lends dignity’ to our titles. ” 

#57 “Establishes legitimacy among all purchasers. ” 

CIP is a valuable tool for marketing to libraries . 

#77 “Libraries require it and are 90% of our market. ” 

#110 “We only do it for libraries. ” 

#82 “Helps librarians who purchase our books. ” 


46 




CIP program service to publishers is uneven . 


#132 “Anytime I hcn'e had a question and left a phone message or sent an email, I 
usually don 7 get an answer back and have to call again... ” 

#182 “My comment is that I can never get a response (via phone or e-mail) from 
anyone when 1 have a question... " 

#131 “Our CIP liaison has not been helpful at all. Phone messages and email 
messages are not returned...” 

#107 “We ’ve never had a problem. The staff has been very helpful. ” 

#93 “I have always found CIP to be accommodating, helpfid, and quick / ” 

"57 “Our CIP liaison is wonderful. She has helped us through many difficult 
situations when manuscripts were quarantined, etc. ” 

Misconception that the CIP program does not include small presses when in fact the 

overwhelming majority of the publishers in the CIP program are small presses . 

#29 “I think it is really important to keep the small and independent press 
movement alive. Access to CIP is crucial for this. CIP should not be made 
available only to the biggest players. Free press and democracy itself relies on the 
small presses, the noncommercial presses, to keep alive the important discussions, 
art movements, and literary voices that we all rely on. ” 

#35 “The primary effect of the changes suggested in 38 would be to stifle dissent 
and create an information monopoly for main-stream opinions and big-business 
interests. Making it more difficult for small publishers to qualify for CIP services 
is a bad idea. Things are hard enough already for alternative presses that are just 
beginning. ” 

#63 “Any effort to narrow your services is just plain wrong, morally, ethically, 
and politically. You work for everyone out here, and in a democracy you should 
work especially hard for the small, independent presses, not just for the 
“traditional"publishing industry. " 

#17 “ The entire publishing industry is increasingly oriented toward mega 
publishers. Please do not change your program in any way that would act against 
small houses and independent presses. Smaller houses are doing some of the most 
exciting and important publishing in the country, helping new voices be heard. 
Please continue to support those efforts. " 

Misconception that the primary purpose of the CIP program is to market books . 

# J20 “It seems that for Juvenile Fiction, CIP information is a must-have in order 
to sell to school librarians, and librarians in general. For fact-basedfiction titles 
such as ours that are hard to classify, CIP has been an instrumental tool for 
educating our market and insuring that our titles end up in the proper sections of 
stores/libraries. ” 


47 






171 “ It's bad enough that some publishers are excludedfrom LC CIP for reasons 
that are not tied to quality or market size. It’s worse that most large publishers 
automatically reap the benefits of database inclusion which serves as free 
advertising, generating sales to the library community at taxpayer expense. ” 

P 41 '‘We are a very' small publisher that concentrates on the reference market and 
academia. We feel that CIP data and or a PCN is essential to establishing 
credibility with the library market. ” 

P53 "We feel that the current system is subsidizing CIP for large publishers who 
receive free inclusion in databases that libraries use for acquisitions, all at 
taxpayer expense. It is effectively restraint of trade for small publishers. ” 

Pi 18 “CIP information is a mark of legitimacy and is a wholly necessary 
ingredient in some markets, so while it’s understandable that eligibility> 
requirements remain sufficiently stiff to weed out self-publishers, etc., independent 
publishers should have equal access. ” 

Regarding the data that appears below, please note that the total percentage of responses 
exceeds 100%. This results from respondents checking more than one option for questions with 
multiple options. Additionally, all numbers expressed as percentages were rounded to the nearest 
tenth of a percent, so that the total response for any given question could be slightly below or 
slightly above 100%. 

Participation in CIP/PCN 


• 77.4% of responding publishers participate in ECIP 

• 44.7% participate in conventional (paper) CIP 

• 18.6% participate in EPCN 

New titles published last year 

• 41.3% - less than five titles 

• 23.8%-5 to 14 titles 

• 9.1%- 15 to 24 titles 

8.8%-25 to 49 titles 

• 7.1% - 50 to 99 titles 

• 5.4% - 100 to 249 titles 

• 2.6% - 250 to 499 titles 

• 1 1% - 500 to 1,000 titles 

• 0.6% - more than 1,000 titles 


Approximate percentage of titles received in machine-readable form from author or agent 

• 14.9% - less than 5% 

• 1.1%-5% to 14% 


48 



• 1.9% - 15% to 29% 

1.9%-30% to 49% 

• 7.0% - 50% to 74% 

25.3% -75% to 99% 

• 47.7%-100% 

Print on demand 

Do you print on demand? 

• 30.5% responded yes 

• 69.5% responded no 


If yes, approximate percentage of total new production done as print on demand: 

• 58.1% - less than 5% 

• 11.0%-5% to 14% 

• 5.7% - 15% to 29% 

• 4.8%-30% to 49% 

• 7.5% - 50% to 74% 

• 3.5%-75% to 99% 

• 9.3%-100% 


E-books 

Do you publish e-books? 

• 21.1% responded yes 

• 78.9% responded no 

If yes, approximate percentage of total new production done as e-books: 

• 53.1%- less than 5% 

• 13.8%-5% to 14% 

• 3.8% - 15% to 29% 

• 5.6%-30% to 49% 

• 8.1%-50% to 74% 

6.2% - 75% to 99% 

• 9.4%-100% 


Of total e-books, approximate percentage also published in ink-print: 
• 27.7% - less than 5% 


49 





• 0.6%-5% to 14% 

• 0.6% - 15% to 29% 

• 1.9%-30% to 49% 

• 3.2%-50% to 74% 

• 5.8%-75% to 99% 

• 60.0%-100% 

If you do not publish e-books, do you plan to start within the next two years? 

• 26.7% responded yes 

• 73.3% responded no 

Preparation for publication 

What software application do you use to format content in final form? 

• Adobe InDesign - 34.1% 

• Adobe PageMaker - 10.5% 

• Microsoft Word - 7.7% 

• Corel WordPerfect - 1.4% 

• Quark XPress - 35.5% 

• Other-10.8% 

How long is a typical production lifecycle of a book, from contract to publication? 

• 2.4% - less than 10 weeks 

• 10.8% - 10 to 19 weeks 

• 17.1% - 20 to 34 weeks 

• 31.8% - 35 to 52 weeks 

• 20.8% - 53 to 79 weeks 

• 11.2% - 80 to 104 weeks 

• 6.0% - more than 104 weeks 

When does cover art become available? 

• 25.4% - more than 10 weeks prior to printing 

• 29.4% - 6 to 10 weeks prior 

• 35.2% - 1 to 5 weeks prior 

• 9.0% - at same time as printing 

• 0.8% - 1 to 2 weeks after 

• 0.2% - more than 2 weeks after 


50 






When during the production cycle is a request for LC CIP Data sent to LC 9 

• 1.1% - more than 52 weeks prior to printing 

• 3.8% - 39 to 52 weeks prior 

• 10.8% - 26 to 38 weeks prior 

• 21.4% - 13 to 25 weeks prior 

• 32.5% - 7 to 13 weeks prior 

• 30.4% - less than 7 weeks prior 


ONIX files 

Do you create ONIX files? 

• 5.5% responded yes 

• 94.5% responded no 

If you create ONIX files, approximate number created last year: 

• 46.7% - less than 5 

• 13.3%-5 to 14 

• 6.7%-15 to 24 

• 4.4% - 25 to 49 

• 6.7%-50 to 99 

• 2.2% - 100 to 249 

• 8.9% - 250 to 499 

• 2.2%- 500 to 1,000 

• 8.9% - more than 1,000 

If you create ONIX files, do you distribute them 9 

• 40.4% responded yes 

• 59.6% responded no 

If you do not create ONIX files, do you plan to create them within the next two years? 

• 15.9% responded yes 

• 84 1% responded no 

Backlist titles in machine-readable form: 


26.9% - less than 5% 
5.6% - 5% to 14% 

7 5% - 15% to 29% 


51 




LC CIP Data 


9.9% - 30% to 49% 
12.9% - 50% to 74% 
15.2%-75% to 99% 
22 . 0 % - 100 % 


Do you generally print LC CIP Data in the book? 

• 64.7% responded always 

• 23.3% responded usually 

• 7.6% responded sometimes 

• 4.3% responded never 

If only sometimes or never, why not? 

• 0% - Not enough space on verso of title page 

• 26.4% - Data not requested in sufficient time 

• 31.1% - Data not received in sufficient time 

• 1.4% - Other CIP Data (e g., British Library) printed instead 

• 41.2%-Other 

What benefits does LC CIP Data provide your organization? 

• 12.7% - Inventory control 

• 46.7% - Marketing 

• 34.2% - Increased sales (general) 

• 76.4% - Increased sales to libraries 

20.5%-Other 

Publisher satisfaction 



Not 

applicable 

Not 

satisfied 

Somewhat 

satisfied 

Satisfied 

Very 

satisfied 

Format of CIP Data 

5% 

3% 

9% 

53% 

30% 

Accuracy of subject analysis 

4% 

3% 

19% 

52% 

22% 

Typographical accuracy 

4% 

2% 

8% 

52% 

33% 

Publisher-supplied summaries 
in CIP Data 

30% 

4% 

8% 

41% 

17% 

Timeliness of CIP Data 

4% 

11% 

18% 

40% 

28% 


52 















Timeliness of changes to CIP 
Data 

21% 

9% 

15% 

35% 

21% 

ECIP system 

12% 

8% 

13% 

35% 

31% 

Communication regarding 
upcoming changes in CIP 
program 

15% 

11% 

22% 

40% 

14% 

Courtesy of your CIP liaison 

8% 

8% 

16% 

32% 

36% 

Technical expertise of your 

CIP liaison 

16% 

5% 

15% 

36% 

28% 

Telephone availability of your 
CIP liaison 

19% 

19% 

22% 

26% 

15% 

Email availability of your CIP 
liaison 

10% 

13% 

18% 

33% 

25% 

Online CIP Publisher Manual 

15% 

3% 

18% 

47% 

17% 


Receiving CIP Data 

In what format would you like to receive your LC CIP data? 

• Printed card format - 17.6% 

• Full MARC record - 10.6% 

• XML- 10.9% 

• PDF - 52.2% 

ONIX- 4 2% 

Other - 30.3% 

Do you want the option to pull LC CIP data from an LC server? 

• 74.1% responded yes 

• 25.9% responded no 

Do you use the LC/NACO Authority File? 

• 2.4% responded yes 

• 97.6% responded no 


53 
















Audio/video files 


Do you currently create or maintain audio or video files of authors for marketing purposes? 

• 12.7% responded yes 

• 87.3% responded no 

If you create or maintain such files, approximately how many per year 9 

• 61.8% - less than 5 

• 20.2% -5 to 14 

• 7.9% - 15 to 24 

• 6.7% - 25 to 49 

• 2.2% - 50 to 99 

• 1.1% - 100 to 249 

• 0% - more than 250 

If you do not create or maintain such files, do you plan to within the next two years? 

• 22.4% responded yes 

• 77.6% responded no 

PDF version of published book 

In addition to a printed copy of the published book, would you be willing to send to LC a 
PDF version of the published book? 

• 69.8% responded yes 

• 30.2% responded no 

Possible CIP Program changes - evaluate impact on your operations 


possible changes: 

Not 

applicable / 
No impact 

Significant 

negative 

impact 

Negative 

impact 

Positive 

impact 

Significant 

positive 

impact 

Enlisting carefully screened and 
qualified cataloging partners 
from libraries to catalog CIPs in 
specific subjects and/or from 
specific publishers 

30% 

1% 

3% 

53% 

13% 


54 










Changing eligibility 
requirements: require 
publishers to have at least 5 
different authors published 

49% 

22% 

18% 

8% 

3% 

More thorough review process 
for publisher eligibility - may 
take 3-6 months from date of 
application 

42% 

24% 

26% 

6% 

2% 

Removing publishers who have 
no CIP activity for 24 months 

46% 

21% 

24% 

6% 

3% 


55 











Recommendations 


This section contains specific CRG recommendations. These recommendations are the result of 
CRG’s deliberations which in turn were shaped by the factors noted in the Introduction-survey 
data, the CIP program mission, resource constraints, automation, staff experience, the ABA 
directorate reorganization. Library Services Strategic Plan FY2008-2013, CIP Advisory Group 
discussions, and other factors. 

This section is divided into 10 subsections: 

1. The Purpose. The CIP mission and printing CIP data in the book. 

2. CIP Data Elements. The inclusion/exclusion of specific CIP data elements. 

3. CIP Data Accuracy. The quality of CIP data. 

4. CIP Verification. Some changes to the verification process. 

5. Scope. Types of work in scope for the CIP program. 

6. Eligibility. Types of publishers eligible for the CIP program 

7. Service to Publishers. Quality of service to publishers. 

8. Future Service. Possible future service to libraries and publishers. 

9. PCN Program. The PCN program. 

10. Selection. The selection process as it relates to the CIP program. 

1. The Purpose of the CIP Program. 

As noted in the Background section of this report, the purpose of the CIP program is 
to catalog in advance of publication those books most likely to be widely acquired by the nation’s 
libraries. Instead of individual libraries cataloging the same work repeatedly, the work is cataloged 
once and literally thousands of libraries benefit and can redirect resources to other uses. 

Does the library community still need the CIP program 9 Of all of the questions included in the 
surveys, this one received the most clear and unambiguous response. Over 92% of library 
respondents rated the overall CIP program as important or very important. 

91% rated CIP important/very important for standardizing cataloging 
90% rated CIP important/very important for improving the quality of cataloging 
84% rated CIP important/very important for speeding book to users 
54% rated CIP important/very important for speeding products and services to users 
51% rated CIP important/very important for enhancing products and services for users 
42% rated CIP important/very important for redirecting funds for purposes other than 
cataloging 


56 


MARC customers also value the CIP program highly: 79% of MARC customers rated CIP as 
important or very important. Nearly 50% of MARC customers rated CIP as very important for 
standardizing cataloging and for speeding products or services to users. 

Publishers likewise value the CIP program highly. 

76.4% cite increased sales to libraries 

46.7% cite benefits to marketing of their publications 

34.2% cite increased sales in general 

When asked about the benefits of CIP data, many publishers mentioned that CIP gives legitimacy, 
credibility, and greater professionalism to their publications. 

Many comments from the library community indicate the program is more important than ever 
because of the budgetary constraints and staff shortages which many libraries are experiencing. 
Respondents also expressed a desire to have more CIP cataloging. These responses clearly indicate 
that the fundamental purpose for the program remains sound and that the service it provides to the 
library community is beneficial and essential. 

Recommendation. 


(1 A.) The CIP Review Group recommends that the Library of Congress continue to administer 
the national Cataloging in Publication program in close consultation with libraries, 
publishers, and vendors of information products. The CIP program is central to the Library's 
mission to make its resources available and useful to the Congress and the American people 
and is a basic element of strategic objective 4.E of the Library Services Strategic Plan for 
2008-2013, "Provide direct services to libraries and publishers." The CIP program at the 
Library of Congress is supported by a wealth of expertise in cataloging, standards 
development, innovative applications of information technology, and collaborative 
relationships with partner institutions. The Library should build on those advantages to 
improve the program while continuing to deliver the timely, high-quality bibliographic 
access that has served the U S information community so well for the past 35 years. 

Printing CIP data in the book. 

The CIP program is predicated on the understanding that participating publishers will print the CIP 
data on the verso of the title page. This is a principal means of making the data available to the 
library community. 


Given the apparent prevalence of automation and internet connectivity in the library community, 
some question the need for printing the data in the book The requirement to print the data in the 


57 



book imposes a production constraint on publishers as it means submitting applications well in 
advance of publication and/or some items holding up their scheduled print date until the completed 
data arrives To address these concerns the CIP program strives to complete the CIP process 
within a two week turn-around time It achieves this goal for more than 80% percent of titles 
processed, but 20% are delayed which may result in delays in printing or the absence of data in the 
printed book. 


When publishers were asked to identify the principal reason for not printing the data in the book, 
26% noted the data was not requested in time and 31% said it was not received in time. 


Publishers, however, also fail to print the data in the book for other reasons. Some have adopted 
the practice of printing the legend “Library of Congress CIP data has been applied for” under the 
misapprehension that this practice meets CIP program policy requirements when in fact it does not 
Or, alternately, some publishers print the legend “Library of Congress cataloging data is available”. 
This practice is also contrary to CIP policy. 


In other instances (as in the case with some children’s books that lack separate title or Copyright 
pages) publishers do not print the data because there is insufficient space. Some publishers also 
chose not to print the data for aesthetic reasons, i.e., the CIP data compromises the design of the 
page. 


Despite these practices and the prevalence of automation, the library community’s position is 
unambiguous. Ninety percent of library respondents said they used CIP data printed in the book; 
86% said the data in the book was useful or very useful for cataloging, 39% said it was useful or 
very useful for public service; 32% said it was useful or very useful for routing books to 
appropriate staff; and 32% said it was useful or very useful for acquisitions 


Recommendations. 


(IB.) Given the very large number of libraries that use CIP data printed in the book and the broad 
range of uses to which the data is put, CRG recommends that the program continue to 
require publishers to print the data in the book 

CRG recognizes that continuing to print the data in the book also means that the production 
of CIP data will remain a time-critical process characterized by urgency. The CIP program 
strives to produce CIP data within two weeks of receipt of the application. In FY06 the 
average throughput time was 9.4 days with 83% completed within 14 days. While all who 
contribute to the CIP process may appreciate the prospect of a less urgent pace that not 


58 



printing the data in the book would likely engender, CRG believes that this would not, in 
the final analysis, serve the library' community well. 


Publishers would submit applications later in the process to ensure the accuracy of the data 
elements (most likely when the book is being printed and there is little chance that a data 
element will change) and because there would be no urgency to get the CIP data back from 
LC before the print date And Library staff processing applications would likewise no 
longer have the incentive of completing the cataloging prior to the anticipated print date. 
CRG fears that over time this would lead to CIP data being created and distributed after the 
book’s publication with no mechanism built into the production system to prohibit this delay 
from extending over a period of weeks or months. This would depreciate a key 
characteristic of CIP data, namely, its currency. 


(1C.) CRG also recommends that the CIP program promote the importance of printing data in the 
book to publishers to obtain fuller compliance with this requirement. 

(ID.) CRG also recommends that publishers who routinely fail to print CIP data in the book or 
who routinely print the legend “CIP data is available at the Library of Congress” be 
suspended from the program. 

Printing the card image format. 

Since the inception of the CIP program, CIP policy has required publishers to print the data as 
provided without adding or deleting elements and without changing punctuation, capitalization, 
spacing, indention, and other matters of format. The format in which the CIP data is provided to 
the publisher is known as the card image format because it emulates the format of catalog card 
records originally printed for the Library’s card catalog, a de facto standard for virtually all card 
catalogs. 


Recognizing that the card image is an anachronism in an automated age, the CRG discussed 
optional formats for printing the data in the book, but were unable to identify a more efficient 
format. Aspects of the current card image format serve as shorthand that identifies basic parts of 
the records without descriptive labels or for that matter without the knowledge of the record’s 
language. For example, when the first line extends over the body of the paragraph, that indicates 
that the extended line is the main entry The ISBD punctuation identifies other parts of the record 
The library community is familiar with these conventions They help interpret the CIP data without 
the addition of cumbersome labels. 


59 


The maintenance and presentation of the card image format, however, is not without some cost. 

The computer application that generates CIP data is not able to generate CIP data that fully adheres 
to some of the requirements of the card format. Publishers likewise are unable to adhere to card 
image format specifications when the data is not sent to them properly formatted. 


Recommendations. 


(IE.) CRG recommends that the policy for printing CIP data in the book be maintained and that 
the basic card image format also be maintained. 

(IF.) CRG, however, also recommends that the specification for the card image format be 

reviewed. The software used by the Library of Congress to generate CIP data in card image 
format is obsolescent and will need revision fairly soon, at considerable expense to LC. The 
Library needs to have some leeway in the design of the card image. The CIP data in card 
image format should continue to conform to all requirements of the descriptive and subject 
cataloging standards, and any new card image format specifications should be made 
available to participating publishers and the library community. 

2. CIP data elements. 

Library and MARC customer responses indicate that almost all of the data elements currently 
included in the CIP record are valued regardless of whether one considers the CIP record prior to 
the book’s publication or after the book’s publication and the CIP verification process is 
completed. 

Recommendation. 


(2A.) CRG recommends that the CIP program continue to include the current complement of data 
elements in the CIP record. 

The Dewey Decimal Classification Number. 

CRG notes that the decimal classification number, while not used by the Library, is nonetheless an 
important data element for a large segment of the library community. The useful/very useful rating 
for this data element is 48%. The useful/very useful rating for the LC call number is 43%. 

Recommendations. 


(2B.) CRG urges the continuation of Dewey Decimal Classification Numbers. CRG realizes that 
staffing resources currently assigned to decimal classification work are insufficient but notes 
that, although augmenting this staff' through hiring may not be possible, the Decimal 


60 





Classification Division has already begun training existing cataloging staff to assign DDC 
numbers. 

Given these concerns and the importance of the decimal classification number for so many 
libraries, CRG recommends that Library management take the following steps: 


1 Continue to train as many catalogers as reasonably possible to assign decimal 

classification numbers—at the same time that subject analysis is done-and thereby 
disperse decimal classification assignment work to staff throughout the various 
cataloging divisions. 

2. Support efforts currently being tested in HLCD to automatically assign DDC 
numbers to works of fiction by single authors in English, French, Spanish, and 
Italian, and expand those efforts to include as wide a range of numbers as possible. 

The NLM Call Numbers & NLM Subject Headings. 

The NLM call number received a low useful/very useful rating, just 10% among library respondents 
and 34% among MARC customers. NLM subject headings received a low useful/very useful rating 
of 14% among library respondents and 41% among MARC customers. This, however, most likely 
reflects the fact that few public, academic, and school libraries use these call numbers and headings 
though they are valued highly by the small number of clinical medical libraries who do use them. 

Recommendation. 


(2C.) CRG recommends that the CIP program continue to include the NLM call number and 
NLM headings 

While the NLM call number and NLM headings are used by a relatively small number of 
libraries, they are valued highly by those libraries and, more importantly, they are created at 
no cost to LC. Clinical medical titles are cataloged almost entirely by the National Library 
of Medicine. LC staff add only LCSH headings and LC call numbers which are used by a 
large number of libraries. 

LC Subject Headings and NLM Subject Headings. 

Clinical medical works are cataloged by the National Library of Medicine. When a clinical medical 
title is submitted for CIP data, it is (after initial review by the CIP Division) redirected to NLM 
where it receives full descriptive and subject treatment. It is then returned to LC where catalogers 
in the medical team add appropriate LCSH headings The surveys sought to obtain feedback 
regarding the value of both sets (MeSH and LCSH headings) and if, perhaps one set of headings 
would suffice. 


61 



For records with both NLM-assigned and LC-assigned subject headings: 

18% of library respondents said MeSH headings were useful or very useful. 

41% of library respondents said LCSH headings were useful or very useful. 

47% of MARC customers said MeSH headings were useful or very useful 
70% of MARC customers said LCSH headings were useful or very useful. 

These responses reflect the preponderance of public, school, and academic libraries responders. 
Users of these libraries are more apt to use an LCSH term like “cancer” rather than the MeSH term 
“oncology”. The relative low number of respondents who require MeSH headings are medical 
libraries or academic libraries where the MeSH are essential to their users. 

The MeSH/LCSH issue was raised in the survey because there may not be sufficient LC resources 
to continue to add LCSH to otherwise complete records created by NLM staff. If the survey 
findings revealed that the MeSH would satisfy most libraries, LC could discontinue the current 
process of adding LCSH and simply distribute these medical titles with MeSH only. The survey 
response, however, does not support this. 

Recommendations . 

(2D.) Given the broad demand for LCSH, CRG recommends that LC make every effort to 
continue to add LCSH. 

(2E.) CRG also notes that the ABA Automation Specialist has developed a program for 

converting MeSH to LCSH equivalents and recommends that this application be employed 
routinely and, if possible, with little or no edits or additions by catalogers. 

LC juvenile subject headings. 

In addition to the Library of Congress subject headings that LC catalogers routinely assign to all 
works processed through the CIP program, catalogers also assign to juvenile works of fiction 
headings that are more appropriate for young readers. In the past, catalogers also assigned these 
additional juvenile subjects headings to non-fiction juvenile works. However, as a result of reduced 
staffing, the practice of adding juvenile headings to non-fiction works was terminated though 
standard LCSH headings continue to be assigned to these works. 

The library community, nonetheless, values juvenile headings highly for both fiction and non-fiction 

65% of library respondents rate juvenile headings for juvenile works of fiction as useful or 
very useful. 

68% of library respondents rate juvenile headings for juvenile works of non-fiction as useful 
or very useful. 


62 



50% of MARC customers rate juvenile headings for juvenile works of fiction as useful or 
very useful. 

50% of MARC customers rate juvenile headings for juvenile works of non-fiction as useful 
or very useful. 

Recommendations. 


(2F.) Given the broad demand for juvenile headings, CRG recommends that LC continue to add 
juvenile headings to works of fiction. 

(2G.) CRG recommends that juvenile headings be added to nonfiction juvenile titles when adult 
headings are assigned. 

(2H.) CRG also recommends that LC explore the possibility of developing partnerships with 

select libraries that may be interested in adding juvenile headings to specific subject areas of 
nonfiction juvenile works. In terms of workflow, this option is very feasible as virtually all 
CIPs are processed electronically via the ECIP program effective January 2007. The LC- 
created record and its counterpart galley could be made accessible to a partner or partners 
interested in assigning these headings. LC staff have considerable expertise in this area and 
could provide initial training and orientation. 

Summary notes. 

The library community values summary notes of all kinds highly but prefers those created by LC 
catalogers for juvenile fiction and non-fiction. 

83.5% of library respondents rate summary notes in general as useful or very useful. 

75.3% of library respondents rate summary notes for juvenile fiction as useful or very 
useful 

74 8% of library respondents rate summary notes for juvenile non-fiction as useful or very 
useful. 

62.7% of library respondents rate publisher-provided summary notes as useful or very 
useful 

The library community likely values the summary notes created by LC catalogers because they are 
always objective and are written by staff with considerable experience in this area. The library 
community also appreciates the summaries provided by publishers. The above numbers indicate, in 
fact, that the difference among the ratings for these various types of summaries is not dramatic. 

MARC customers also value summary notes: 

75% rate summary notes in general as useful or very useful. 

50% rate summary notes for juvenile fiction as useful or very useful. 


63 



43% rate summary notes for juvenile non-fiction as useful or very useful. 

63% rate publisher-provided summary notes as useful or very useful. 

The difference in the amount of LC staffing resources required to provide these various types of 
summaries, however, is dramatic. The summaries provided by publishers absorb few LC resources. 
Catalogers read the summary and either accept it or reject it. Catalogers never edit or rewrite these 
summaries as the summaries are presented as the work of the publisher. Publishers are also not 
allowed to rewrite these summaries for to do so would require additional processing by LC staff to 
accommodate the change. 

Publishers for their part also appear to be satisfied with the publisher-provided summaries program 
Sixty-eight percent of publisher respondents indicated that they are either satisfied or very satisfied 
with publisher-supplied summaries appearing in the CIP data. 

The summaries created by LC staff by contrast absorb considerable resources as the catalogers 
must familiarize themselves with each work sufficiently to write an accurate summary. This time- 
consuming task also affects cataloging throughput time and whether or not the completed CIP data 
will get to the publisher in time to be printed in the book. While the CIP program strives to 
complete CIP processing within two weeks, throughput time for juvenile titles is generally longer 
than two weeks. This is because the work is more time-consuming than most non-juvenile 
cataloging, staffing levels for this type of work are inadequate, and the number of juvenile titles 
published continues to grow year after year. 


Recommendations. 


(21.) Given these circumstances, CRG recommends that publishers be urged to provide these 
summaries as they do today for adult titles; i.e., publishers should be urged to submit 
publisher provided summaries for all works for which CIP data is requested. 

(2J.) CRG also recommends that LC catalogers prepare summaries only for juvenile works of 
fiction for which there is no acceptable publisher-provided summary and only on those 
occasions when the work in question fully adheres to the scope of the Library’s Annotated 
Card Program 

(2K.) CRG also recommends that LC explore the possibility of developing partnerships with 
select libraries and/or juvenile literature experts that may be interested in creating 
summaries for specific subject areas and/or genres In terms of workflow , this option is 
very feasible as virtually all CIPs are processed electronically via the ECIP program 
effective January 2007. The LC-created record and its counterpart galley could be made 
accessible to a partner interested in creating summaries for a specific category of juvenile 
works. LC staff have considerable expertise in this area and could provide initial training 
and orientation. 


64 



Table of contents notes . 

Libraries value table of contents notes, especially when they appear as a note in the record. 

71.3% of library respondents rate table of contents notes that appear in the record as useful 
or very useful. 

45.2% of library respondents rate table of contents notes accessible via a hyperlink in the 
record as useful or very useful. 

The immediacy of the table of contents appearing in the record very likely explains the higher rating 
for table of contents notes in the record over those linked to the record. 

MARC customers value both the table of contents notes that appear within bibliographic records as 
well as the tables of contents that are hyperlinked in the bibliographic records. 

73% of MARC customers rate table of contents notes that appear in the record as useful or 
very useful. 

67% of MARC customers rate table of contents notes accessible via a hyperlink in the 
record as useful or very useful. 

Table of content notes are added to or linked to CIP records in four ways: 

(1) During the descriptive cataloging process, the cataloger adds the table of contents 
(TOC) to the 505 field provided that it is not overly long and contains valuable information. This 
pertains only to titles that publishers submit electronically via the ECIP system and for which the 
process is largely automated. 

(2) Periodically the Automation Coordinator for ABA runs a program that retrospectively 
searches the ECIP data base of ECIP applications for all TOCs, stores them in a resource file, and 
adds a link to the appropriate record, assuming they have not been previously linked. These TOCs 
are not reviewed by staff nor are any special efforts made to adjust or enhance aspects of format, 
but they are indexed by Yahoo, Google, and the Library’s website search engine. In this way, users 
searching the Internet can encounter the vocabulary originating from the TOCs and be led to the 
CIP record. Conversely, users who first encounter the CIP record, for example, by searching a 
library’s online catalog can access the TOC by clicking on the link that appears in the record’s 856 
field. 


(3) Periodically the Automation Coordinator for ABA runs a program that searches ONIX 
files provided to the Library by publishers. In this way TOCs, author information, publisher 
descriptions, etc., are linked to the catalog record to provide the reader additional information 
about the book or its author. The ONIX files include information that relates to both CIP and non- 
CIP records. 


65 


(4) The final source of TOCs is the Digital Table of Contents Project. The dTOC project 
works with the book in hand. Library staff identify and scan books that contain TOCs that are 
determined to be of value to the reader. The scanned image is then converted to a machine- 
readable file and linked to the appropriate record. As in the case of the ONIX process, the dTOC 
project is not solely concerned with books that have CIP catalog records. 

Recommendations. 


(2L.) CRG recommends that LC staff continue to create TOCs in the manner noted above. 

(2M.) CRG recommends that LC staff continue to include TOCs in the record when they are brief, 
add value, and can be added to the record in a timely manner and without exceptional 
editing. CIP management and automation staff have from time to time discussed the 
possibility of terminating the inclusion of TOCs in the record (i.e., terminating the method 
described in paragraph (1) and instead providing TOCs as linked entities only). The 
rationale for this position is that it requires no cataloging resources. Given the clear 
preference for TOCs appearing in the record, and given the fact that while some cataloging 
resources are required to provide this service those resources are relatively modest, CRG 
recommends that LC staff continue to include TOCs in the record. 

(2N.) CRG also recommends that LC explore the possibility of developing partnerships with 
select libraries who may be interested in capturing TOCs and or other record enriching 
elements by emulating the dTOC Project. When libraries were asked if they would be 
interested in enhancing CIP records with additional elements, they were for the most part 
not interested or only somewhat interested. Thirty percent, however, said they were 
interested or very interested in helping with book reviews and 23% expressed the same 
interest in helping with indexes. 

While only a relatively few libraries expressed interest in enhancing records, this is a low 
cost operation (requiring common and relatively inexpensive equipment such as a 
photocopier and/or scanner and Optical Character Recognition software) with a significant 
benefit for the library community. The Library’s resource file of record enrichment 
elements (TOCs, publisher descriptions, etc ) is freely available to other libraries. Partner 
libraries could identify specific areas of interest and contribute the enrichment elements of 
that area of interest to the resource file while obtaining the collective benefits of the 
elements contributed by other participating libraries. 

Hyperlinked information. 

Library respondents generally rate hyperlinked information (i.e., information that is accessible by 

clicking a link appearing in the 856 field of the MARC version of the CIP record) highly. 


66 



49.1% rate reviews as useful or very useful 

45.2% rate table of contents notes as useful or very useful. 

32.2% rate publisher descriptions (i.e., descriptions of the work provided by the publisher 
and obtained via ONIX records) as useful or very useful. 

31% rate sample text (i.e , text of the work provided by the publisher and obtained via 
ONIX records) as useful or very useful. 

29.9% rate contributor biographical information (i.e., information about the author provided 
by the publisher and obtained via ONIX records) information as useful or very 
useful. 

Likewise, MARC customers generally rate hyperlinked information highly: 

53% rate publisher descriptions as useful or very useful. 

57% rate contributor biographical information as useful or very useful. 

52% rate reviews as useful or very useful. 

45% rate sample text as useful or very useful. 

Recommendations. 


(20.) CRG recommends that the Library continues to enhance CIP records with information 

elements obtained from ONIX files and, to the extent possible, that ONIX files be obtained 
from additional publishers. 

Publisher survey responses, however, indicate that the availability of ONIX files is limited 
and that they appear to be created, maintained, and distributed mainly by the largest 
publishers. When publishers were asked if they currently create ONIX files, only 5.5% said 
they did and only 15.9% said they planned to create ONIX files within the next two years. 

Nonetheless, libraries expressed considerable interest in having enrichment elements 
available to them. 

48% said book reviews would have significant positive or extremely positive impact. 

39% said book indexes would have significant positive or extremely positive impact. 

38% said book jacket blurbs would have significant positive or extremely positive impact. 
37% said book jacket images would have significant positive or extremely positive impact. 

(2P.) CRG, therefore, recommends that CIP management explore the possibility of developing a 
low cost mechanism that would enable non-ONIX publishers to contribute elements such as 
indexes and book reviews to the Library’s resource file. This might be accomplished with 
relatively few automation resources by modifying the ECIP publishers change request form. 
This change submission could be easily distinguished from the other routine CIP changes 
and processed in the same manner as ONIX file elements-automatically and without LC 
staff intervention. 


67 



Genre headings . 

Library respondents value genre headings for works of American fiction very highly. 

77% rate genre headings as useful or very useful. 

MARC customers also value genre headings for works of American fiction very highly. 

52% rate genre headings as useful or very useful. 

Recommendations. 


(2Q.) CRG recommends that the Library continue to add genre headings to CIP records but in an 
automated manner. CRG recommends that the list of genre headings prescribed by 
Guidelines on Subject Access to Individual Works of Fiction, Drama, Etc. be included in a 
drop down box of the ECIP data application form in such a manner that the publisher can 
readily select the appropriate genre heading. This would be an optional field so the 
publisher could choose to have the heading appear in the CIP record or not. 

(2R.) CRG recommends that the TCEC application that facilitates the cataloging process be 

modified so the selected genre heading could be automatically copied into the bibliographic 
record. The cataloger would then review the term during the cataloging process, accept it, 
or delete it, if it were judged to be inaccurate. No additional resources would be expended 
in this area. 

(2S.) CRG recommends that no subject headings be added to these works of fiction with the 

exception of juvenile works of fiction which would receive subject headings appropriate for 
young readers. 


Price. 

The price of the book is not currently included in CIP data. Thirty-two percent of library 
respondents said this would have a significant positive or extremely positive impact. Sixty-five 
percent of MARC respondents said this would have a significant positive or extremely positive 
impact. 

Recommendation. 


(2T.) CRG recommends that the price of the book be added to the MARC version of the CIP 
record assuming that it can be added automatically. 

The cost for making this enhancement would be minimal as it would involve mainly changes 
to the CIP Data Application form and related files and the TCEC application. CRG notes 


68 




that the price should not be included in the CIP data sent to the publisher to be printed in 
the book as it would be redundant to the occurrence of that information on the book jacket. 
CRG also notes that this should be an optional element for publishers and that the data 
element not be changed subsequent to submission by the publisher. 

CRG recognizes that prices sometimes change but these changes are generally not 
substantial and that the intent of the price is to provide libraries a sense of the book’s cost 
to assist in ordering and encumbering funds. The price actually paid by the library is 
influenced by a number of factors including, for example, vendor discounts. CRG also 
notes that only one price-the price for the U S. market in U S. dollars-be included as the 
principal constituency for the CIP program is the U S. library community. Also any effort 
to include multiple prices would make this enhancement prohibitively costly and 
cumbersome. 

3. CIP data accuracy. 

Library and MARC customer responses rate the accuracy of almost all CIP data elements highly. 
They also rate typographical accuracy highly. 

Publishers also rate typographical accuracy as well as subject analysis accuracy highly. 

Library respondents gave the highest poor rating (11%) to the physical description. CRG believes 
this rating is the result of a misplaced expectation that the physical description should include the 
size and pagination of the book. Because these data elements are not available at the time of CIP 
processing, these fields are always blank when the data is first issued. Also, when CIP data is sent 
to the publisher to be printed in the book, it is sent with the line “p. cm.,” with no pagination or 

size information included. Some libraries may perceive this omission as an error when it is only 
intended as signal indicating the location where these data elements appear in catalog card 
formatted data. 

Recommendations. 


(3 A.) While library responses rate the accuracy of CIP records highly, CRG, nonetheless, 
recommends that Library management: 

1. Require publisher liaisons to do a title proper search for all CIP applications prior to 
assigning the LCCN and forwarding for cataloging to minimize duplicate 
processing. Efforts should also be made to automate this search to the degree 
possible. 

2. Remind all cataloging staff to do a title proper search before creating CIP records to 
ensure that a duplicate version of the record does not already exist. 


69 



3. Remind all cataloging staff to always run the validation application to ensure the 
accuracy of data elements. 

(3B.) CRG also recommends that when the guidelines for printing the card image format in the 
book are reviewed and revised that the current convention of including “p. cm.” be 
deleted. 

4. CIP verification process. 

CIP verification is the final stage of the CIP process. Immediately after the book is published, 
publishers are required to send a copy of the printed book to LC for each work for which CIP data 
was provided. When LC staff receive the book, they compare the book-in-hand with the CIP 
record and confirm the accuracy of the data elements in the record and/or correct erroneous 
elements. The MARC21 version of the record is then redistributed to libraries, book sellers, and 
bibliographic utilities and replaces the earlier version of the record. 

The survey included several questions related to this process to determine if it is necessary for the 
Library to continue the CIP verification process. 

Libraries were asked if they upgraded or completed the CIP record in their local catalog and 73.6% 
said they did But when asked if they added their upgraded version of the record to their 
bibliographic utility, only 30.3% said they did. When asked if they downloaded LC’s verified 
version of the record (regardless of whether they did or did not upgrade the CIP version earlier) 
44.5% said they did And when asked if it would be acceptable if LC discontinued the verification 
process, 75.6% said it would not be acceptable. Likewise, MARC customers were opposed to 
discontinuing the verification process. 

This suggests that in many instances when libraries upgrade the CIP version of the record they 
likely do so as a stopgap measure, i.e., to get the record into their system and usable as quickly as 
possible, but in the final analysis they still depend on the verified redistributed record. 

Recommendations. 


(4A.) CRG recommends that Library staff continue to do CIP verification but to do so by using 
OCLC copy whenever possible. That is, CIP staff should search all CIP books on OCLC 
and whenever a verified version of the record is found, download it. CRG recommends that 
minimal review or revision be made to the downloaded OCLC record and that this process 
of downloading and minimal review be done by technician staff. While this may not ideally 
meet the needs of the library community, it represents efficiency and savings for the Library, 
expedites the verification process, and frees staff resources that can be redeployed to 
creating original cataloging. 


70 



(4B.) CRG recommends that no verification be done on works (e.g., large print editions) not 

collected by the Library. When libraries were asked if this practice might be acceptable to 
the library community, 59.1% said it would be. 

(4C.) CRG recommends that the CIP office implement proactive claiming—additional to the 

monthly list of books currently posted on the front end of the ECIP system and accessible to 
publishers when they sign on. CRG recommends that the CIP staff (to the extent that 
staffing resources permit) email and/or call publishers who have especially large numbers of 
outstanding books. 

5. Scope. 

“Scope” refers to the types of publications that the CIP program accepts for processing and is 
largely driven by the program’s determination to catalog works most likely to be widely acquired 
by the nation’s libraries. Availability of resources and the constraints of the automated systems that 
support the program are also important factors. 

This has meant that in terms of format the program has been limited to ink-print monographs since 
its inception with two exceptions: original microform publications and direct access electronic 
resources (“computer files”). Computer files were fraught with complexity from the outset. The 
pieces involved were numerous—the label, the box or package, the jewel case, the main menu-and 
the data elements appearing on each were seldom consistent. Printing the CIP data was likewise 
complicated and the number of publisher participants were very few in number. Production seldom 
exceeded 40 titles a year. As the cost of maintaining this separate work stream exceeded its overall 
value, it was eventually terminated. 

While it is amply clear from the very high value that libraries place on the CIP program (as well as 
many of the comments) that libraries would like to have as much CIP data as possible, the severity 
of resource limits compels the Library to carefully assess those types of publications that libraries 
would like to have included in the CIP program as well as those currently included in the program. 

Audio discs/tapes. 

Audio discs/tapes are currently not within scope. When libraries rated the positive impact of 
including audio discs/tapes in the CIP program, 65% said the impact would be significantly or 
extremely positive. 

Recommendation. 


(5A.) CRG recommends that the CIP program explore the possibility of providing audio CIP 
records in those instances when a previous catalog record exists for an ink print edition. 
Specifically, CRG recommends that CIP management explore the possibility of modifying 
the ECIP publishers main menu to include an application form for audio CIP data when ink 


71 






print CIP data exists. The application form would include sufficient data elements to match 
the audio work with the previously created ink print CIP record. The application form 
would also include data elements unique to the audio version. Software development 
would be required to pull appropriate data elements from the ink print record and the 
application form and merge them into an audio format record. This recommendation is 
predicated on the assumption that the process would be sufficiently automated that it would 
be completed entirely within the Publisher Liaison Team by publisher liaisons who would 
only review the final product and send it to the publisher. No cataloging staff resources 
would be required. 

Video discs/tapes. 

Video discs/tapes are currently not within scope. When libraries rated the positive impact of 
including video discs/tapes in the CIP program, 74% said the impact would be significantly or 
extremely positive. MARC customers indicated that 41% of them would find the inclusion of video 
discs/tapes to have a significant positive impact. 

Recommendation. 


(5B.) CRG recommends no change to CIP policy in this area. Significant resources would be 
required to include these works in the CIP program. If, however, the recommendations 
noted for audio discs/tapes were confirmed and proved successful, a similar strategy might 
be applied to this format. 

Multimedia packages. 

Multimedia packages are currently not within scope. When libraries rated the positive impact of 
including multimedia packages in the CIP program, 54% said the impact would be significantly or 
extremely positive. 

Recommendation. 

(5C.) CRG recommends no change to CIP policy in this area. Significant resources would be 
required to include these works in the CIP program. If, however, the recommendations 
noted for audio discs/tapes were confirmed and proved successful, a similar strategy might 
be applied to this format. 

E-books. 

E-books are currently not within scope. When libraries rated the positive impact of including E- 
books in the CIP program, 39% said the impact would be significantly or extremely positive. When 
MARC customers rated the positive impact of including E-books in the CIP program, 46% said the 
impact would be significantly positive. 


72 




However, when participating publishers were asked if they published E-books, 78.9% said they did 
not and 73.3% of these negative respondents said they did not plan to publish E-books within the 
next two years. Of those publishers that said they did publish E-books last year, 53.1% said that 
their E-books constituted less than 5% of their production 

Recommendation. 

(5D ) CRG recommends no change to CIP policy in this area. Significant resources would be 
required to include these works in the CIP program. If, however, the recommendations 
noted for audio discs/tapes were confirmed and proved successful, a similar strategy might 
be applied to this format. 

Microform publications. 

Microform publications not originally published in another format are within scope. When libraries 
rated the positive impact of including microform publications originally published in other formats, 
40% said this would have no positive impact and 16% said it would have a slightly positive impact. 
Currently, very few records are created for microform publications not originally published in 
another format. 

Recommendation. 


(5E.) CRG recommends that microform publications of all kinds be excluded from the CIP 
program. Digital technology has replaced microform publications in many instances. 
Maintaining procedures and other system features to support CIP processing for microform 
publications is not cost effective. 

Non-English books. 

Technically the CIP program currently includes all languages, though non-English submissions are 
limited by CIP policy to works originally published in the non-English language. In practice more 
than 90% of CIP production is for English language titles while about 5% are Spanish. The CIP 
program accepts translations into English and translations into Spanish. The CIP program does not 
process any work translated from a non-English language to another language with the exception of 
works translated into Spanish. Translations from any language into Spanish are within scope. 

Recommendation. 


(5F.) CRG recommends no change to CIP policy in this area. 

Mass market paperbacks. 

Mass market paperbacks are currently not within scope. When libraries rated the positive impact of 


73 





including mass market paperbacks in the CIP program, 42% said the impact would be significantly 
or extremely positive. Exactly half of MARC customers, however, rated inclusion of mass market 
paperbacks as having no impact. 


Recommendation. 


(5G.) CRG recommends no change to CIP policy in this area. Significant resources would be 
required to include these works in the CIP program. If, however, the ECIP cataloging 
partnership efforts noted in other parts of this report prove successful or if 
recommendations to modify and more fully utilize the CIP program to create records for 
audio discs/tapes are successfully implemented, this recommendation should be 
reconsidered. 

Clinical medical books. 

As noted above in the section entitled “LC Subject Headings and NLM Subject Headings,” the 

CIP program includes clinical medical titles. These works are cataloged by the National Library of 

Medicine with the exception of the LCSH headings which are added by LC cataloging staff. 

Recommendation. 


(5H.) CRG recommends no change to CIP policy in this area. 

Music scores. 

Music scores are currently not within scope. When libraries rated the positive impact of including 
music scores in the CIP program, 20% said the impact would be significantly or extremely positive 
while 41% said there would be no positive impact. 

Recommendation. 


(51.) CRG recommends no change to CIP policy in this area. 

Devotional /inspirational books. 

Devotional /inspirational books are currently within scope of the CIP program. 

When libraries rated the negative impact of removing devotional /inspirational books from the CIP 
program, 24% said the impact would be significantly or severely negative while 32% said there 
would be no negative impact. 


74 





Recommendations. 


(5J .) CRG recommends that CIP staff work closely with Selection Librarians who have expressed 
concern regarding the inclusion of some devotional/inspirational publications that may not be 
widely acquired by the nation’s libraries. As such titles are identified by Selection Librarians, 
publisher liaisons will research them, and if the publishers of these works prove not to 
produce works widely acquired by the nation’s libraries, suspend them from the CIP program. 

(5K.) CRG also recommends that CIP staff pursue discussions with University of Dayton Roesch 

Library staff who have expressed an initial interest in cataloging the works of select publishers 
of devotional/inspirational works which the University of Dayton libraries collect. 

“How to” or do-it-yourself books. 

“How to” or do-it-yourself books are currently within scope of the CIP program. When libraries 
rated the negative impact of removing “how to” works from the CIP program, 33% said the impact 
would be significantly or severely negative. 

Recommendation. 


(5L.) CRG recommends no change to CIP policy in this area. 

Textbooks. 

Textbooks that are college level or higher are currently within scope. This applies to editions 
intended for students; teacher editions are out of scope. Also, when multiple versions of a given 
textbook are published, only the most comprehensive version is provided CIP data. When libraries 
rated the negative impact of removing college level or above textbooks from the CIP program, 18% 
said the impact would be significantly or severely negative. 

When libraries rated the positive impact of including textbooks below the college level in the CIP 
program, 15% said the impact would be significantly or extremely positive. 

Recommendation. 


(5M.) CRG recommends no change to CIP policy in this area. 

Consumable educational materials (workbooks , teachers manuals , etc.). 

Consumable publications of any kind are currently out of scope for the CIP program. This includes 
not only educational publications, work books, manuals, tests, etc., but also any publications that 
indicate that the user should write in, mark up, or in any way alter the work. 


75 





When libraries rated the positive impact of including consumable educational materials in the CIP 
program, 21% said the impact would be significantly or extremely positive while 34% said there 
would be no positive impact. 

Recommendation. 


(5N.) CRG recommends no change to CIP policy in this area. 

Phonics books. 

Phonics books are currently within scope of the CIP program. Phonics books are curriculum books 
generally used in classrooms rather than libraries and they help in the learning of reading and spelling 
based on the use of phonics. These works impose an especially heavy burden on cataloging 
resources and in particular juvenile cataloging resources which can least afford the burden. 

When libraries rated the negative impact of removing phonics books from the CIP program, 16% said 
the impact would be significantly or severely negative while 38% said there would be no negative 
impact. 

Recommendation. 

(50.) CRG recommends that phonics books be excluded from the CIP program. CRG 

acknowledges some negative impact, but the ratio of work to available cataloging resources 
in the area of juvenile cataloging is critical. Cutting back in this area will better enable the 
CIP program to provide data for other juvenile titles in a timely manner. 

Chapter books. 

Chapter books are currently within scope of the CIP program. Chapter books are transitional books, 
divided into chapters and often featuring contemporary themes and/or humorous stories, that help 
children move from early readers to full novels. When libraries rated the negative impact of removing 
chapter books from the CIP program, 46% said the impact would be significantly or severely 
negative while 26% said there would be no negative impact. 

Recommendation. 


(5P.) CRG recommends no change to CIP policy in this area. 

Repackaged editions. 

Repackaged editions are currently within scope of the CIP program. Repackaged editions are 
formerly published works that when republished are mainly distinguishable from the previous edition 


76 





by packaging; eg., a set of volumes previously published individually then republished as a box set. 
When libraries rated the negative impact of removing repackaged editions from the CIP program, 
20% said the impact would be significantly or severely negative while 29% said there would be no 
negative impact. 

Recommendation. 


(5Q.) CRG recommends that repackaged editions be excluded from the CIP program. The content 
of the repackaged edition and the principal cataloging data elements of the earlier versions are 
usually sufficiently similar that libraries can use the record(s) created for the previous 
edition(s) with some edits. CRG acknowledges some negative impact, but the ratio of work 
to available cataloging resources in the area of juvenile cataloging is critical. Cutting back in 
this area will better enable the CIP program to provide data for other juvenile titles in a timely 
manner. 

“ Tie-ins” 

“Tie-ins” are currently within scope of the CIP program. “Tie-ins” are generally (though not 
exclusively) children’s books, that are derived from movies, TV shows, comics, video games, toys, 
food, etc. 

When libraries rated the negative impact of removing “tie-ins’ from the CIP program, 32% said the 
impact would be significantly or severely negative while 28% said there would be no negative impact. 


Recommendation 


(5R ) CRG recommends that “tie-ins” be excluded from the CIP program. CRG acknowledges 
some negative impact, but the ratio of work to available cataloging resources in the area of 
juvenile cataloging is critical. Cutting back in this area will better enable the CIP program to 
provide data for other juvenile titles in a timely manner. 

Editions. 

Editions are currently within scope of the CIP program with some exceptions. Vest pocket editions, 
textbooks published in multiple volumes when a single volume edition exists, and teachers editions 
are out of scope. The number of editions published each year is considerable. Approximately 22% of 
CIP production is editions 

Many editions, however, are not substantially different from earlier editions. 


77 




Recommendations. 


(5S.) CRG recommends that editions be cataloged by technicians when copy for an earlier edition is 
available and the complexity of changes do not warrant the attention of a professional 
cataloger. 

(5T.) CRG also recommends that LC explore the possibility of developing partnerships with select 
libraries that may be interested in cataloging editions in specific subject areas. In terms of 
workflow, this option is very feasible as virtually all CIPs are now processed electronically via 
the ECIP program and the CIP application could be made available to a partner. 

Large print editions. 

Large print editions are currently within scope of the CIP program though LC does not collect large 
print editions. Consequently, some LC staff have from time to time questioned the expenditure of 
limited staffing resources for both initial cataloging as well as the CIP verification on these works. 

The basic premise of the CIP program, however, is to serve the library community by cataloging 
those works most likely to be widely acquired by the nation’s libraries. 

When libraries rated the negative impact of removing large print works from the CIP program, 25% 
said the impact would be significantly or severely negative. 

Recommendation. 


(5U.) CRG recommends that the CIP program no longer provide original cataloging for large print 
editions. Instead, CRG recommends that CIP management explore the possibility of 
modifying the ECIP publishers main menu to include an application form for large print 
editions when CIP data exists for the “regular” non-large print edition. The application form 
would include sufficient data elements to match the large print work with the record 
previously created for the “regular” non-large print edition. The application form would also 
include data elements unique to the large print edition. Software development would be 
required to pull appropriate data elements from the record for the “regular” non-large print 
edition and the application form and merge them into a large print edition record. This 
recommendation is predicated on the assumption that the process would be sufficiently 
automated that it would be completed entirely within the Publisher Liaison Team by publisher 
liaisons who would only review the final product and send it to the publisher. No cataloging 
staff resource would be required. 

Serials. 

Serials are out of scope for the CIP program. Serials are periodicals, annuals, and other publications 
regularly issued under the same title. Normally, only the date or volume number changes from one 
issue to the next. 


78 




Recommendation. 


(5V.) CRG recommends no change to CIP policy in this area. 

6. Eligibility. 

“Eligibility” refers to the types of publishers that the CIP program accepts for participation. As the 
purpose of the CIP program is to catalog in advance of publication those works most likely to be 
widely acquired by the nation’s libraries, participating publishers must publish works consistent with 
this purpose. 

Recommendations. 


(6A.) CRG recommends that CIP management develop and conduct a seminar for publisher liaisons 
that focuses on procedures for reviewing and accepting applicants to the CIP program to 
ensure that all applicants are researched thoroughly and that accounts are provided to only 
those publishers that clearly qualify. CRG also recommends that the review process be 
standardized to ensure full review, including review of homepages and searching OCLC for 
holdings. 

(6B.) CRG also recommends that publisher liaisons review all current participants, as time and 

resources permit, to identify any publisher who may have been accepted into the program in 
error and/or whose works have subsequently proven not to be widely acquired. 

(6C.) CRG also recommends that the CIP office automatically terminate any ECIP account that has 
been inactive for 24 months. While 45% of publisher respondents indicated that such a policy 
would have a negative or significantly negative impact, this policy will facilitate the review 
process referenced above and thereby contribute to a tighter application of CIP eligibility 
policy. CRG acknowledges that this may be an inconvenience to some publishers but the 
application form that publishers complete when requesting participation to the program is 
neither extensive nor especially demanding. 

Self-publishers. 

Titles paid for or subsidized in any part by individual authors, creators, editors, illustrators, etc. are 
not eligible for the CIP program. 

When libraries rated the positive impact of including self-publishers in the CIP program, 27% said the 
impact would be significantly or extremely positive, while 26% said there would be no positive 
impact. Forty-eight percent of MARC customers rated the possible inclusion of self-publishers in the 
CIP program as having no positive impact. 


79 




Recommendation 


(6D.) CRG recommends no change to CIP policy in this area. Many self-publishers have expressed 
dissatisfaction with this policy for various reasons including the following: 

1. Self-publishers perceive the policy is discriminatory and favors large publishers over small 
publishers. In fact, however, the largest majority of publishers that participate in the CIP 
program are small. Publisher responses indicate that 41% produce five or fewer new titles 
per year while 24% produce between six and fourteen new titles per year. 

2. Self-publishers perceive that participating publishers obtain a marketing advantage and 
maintain that all publishers must be provided this same advantage. The CIP program, 
however, does have a right to make determinations regarding publisher eligibility. “The 
Supreme Court has held on numerous occasions that the government may set conditions upon 
eligibility for conferral of a government benefit.” (Overview Books, LLC and Lev Tsitrin, 
Plaintiffs, v. United States, Defendant.) 

3. Self-publishers perceive that exclusion from the program diminishes the value of their 
publication. However, though the program might be viewed as a benefit to participating 
publishers, “the program does not burden non-participants’ ability to derive economic benefits 
from their work.” “The existence and nature of property rights in governmental benefits has 
been addressed extensively by the Supreme Court in the context of procedural due process 
protections of such rights. ‘To have a property interest in a benefit, a person... must have 
more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation 
of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlements to it’.... ‘Property interests... 
are not created by the Constitution. Rather they are created and their dimensions are defined 
by existing rules or understanding that stem from an independent source.’ ” (Overview 
Books, LLC and Lev Tsitrin, Plaintiffs, v. United States, Defendant.) 

4. Self-publishers perceive that exclusion from the program limits freedom of speech. 
“Authors and publishers [however] are not required to adopt any position or viewpoint in 
their work to have such work processed through the CIP program, nor are they prevented 
from expressing themselves in any other way.” “The program is a benefit to authors whose 
books are placed in the program but not a burden to the expressive rights of those whose 
books do not qualify. Nothing in the CIP program suggests that the Library is attempting to 
advance a certain viewpoint or idea.” (Overview Books, LLC and Lev Tsitrin, Plaintiffs, v. 
United States, Defendant.) 

CRG notes that this policy of excluding self-publishers was developed in conjunction with the 
CIP Advisory Group that consists primarily of librarians. As self-published works are 
generally not widely acquired, they are more efficiently and cost-effectively cataloged by 
those individual libraries that do acquire them. If the CIP program were to include these 
works, it should be noted, the increase in workload would be devastating. At least two-thirds 
of the works currently processed by the PCN program would be directed to the CIP program. 


80 



This means that CIP production would immediately increase by, at very least, 20,000 
applications. Current resources could not support this demand, and the CIP process would 
stop. 

CRG also notes that most self-published works are not vetted by an objective body. By 
contrast, works issued by publishing firms are reviewed by editorial staff and others who 
judge the viability of proposed publications. Most proposed works are rejected. Those 
judged acceptable are backed with a financial commitment from the firm. When self¬ 
publishers ask the Library to catalog their unvetted works, they are asking the Library to 
commit valuable cataloging resources to works that have not been reviewed and approved by 
any objective body and for which there is no assurance that there is any audience let alone a 
large audience of libraries. 

For these reasons only publishers with an established history of producing works that are 
widely acquired by the nation’s libraries are eligible for the CIP program. 

Production houses & consortiums. 

Production houses and consortiums are not eligible for the CIP program. Production houses are 
companies that provide services to publishers and often act on behalf of a publisher when requesting 
CIP data. Often the services of a production house overlap with those of a conventional vanity press. 
Often production houses submit works on behalf of self-publishers or a publisher that publishes 
works not widely acquired by the nation’s libraries. Consortiums are associations of publishers and 
writers and/or self-publishers that provide support to publishers and/or writers but do not generally 
provide a financial investment or establish a contractual arrangement for the individual works 
produced by the members. The works of consortiums are generally not widely acquired by the 
nation’s libraries. 

Production houses are also problematic, because as intermediaries they are often not positioned 
and/or not willing to ensure full compliance with CIP policy—such as the requirement to send to the 
Library a copy of the printed book immediately upon publication. 

Because some production houses facilitate the production of mainstream publishers whose works are 
widely acquired by the nation’s libraries, a number of these firms have over the years been included in 
the CIP program. 

Recommendation. 


(6E.) CRG recommends that CIP service be suspended for all production houses and consortiums 
and that no future accounts be established for production houses or consortiums. If 
publishers eligible for the CIP program choose to have a production house obtain data on 
their behalf, that service must be obtained via the publisher’s account, but the publishers will 
be responsible for all aspects of CIP policy compliance. 


81 



Print on Demand. 


On-demand book publishers are not eligible for the CIP program. On-demand books are generally 
printed in small numbers. While some titles may, over a period of time, generate a total overall print 
number of some significance, the initial print runs are seldom widely acquired by the nation’s 
libraries. In those instances when an on-demand title is widely acquired by libraries (over a period of 
time and a series of printings) a catalog record is generally available from other libraries or networks 
such as OCLC (the Online Computer Library Center). 

Slightly more than 69% of responding publishers noted that they did not print on demand. Of the 
slightly more than 30% that do print on demand, most (slightly more than 58%) print very few print 
on demand titles (i.e., 5% percent or fewer of their total production are print-on-demand titles). 

Other responses, while few in number, indicate that there are publishers in the program that do 
mainly or only print-on-demand titles. 

Recommendation. 


(6F.) CRG recommends no change to CIP policy in this area. 

Non-U.S. publishers. 

A number of prominent non-U. S. publishers are currently included in the CIP program. These are 
multi-national publishers who were accepted into the program because they produce works that are 
routinely added to the Library’s collections and are also widely acquired by the nation’s libraries. 
These participate in the CIP program with the understanding that they maintain, in a U S. city, 
production and editorial staff capable of responding to issues that may arise during the cataloging 
process and responsible for ensuring compliance with CIP policy. 

These publishers, however, are often problematic as they frequently submit applications direct from a 
non-U. S. office without the knowledge of the U S. office, which in turn are sometimes unwilling to 
take responsibility for them. Other issues that arise include inadequate communication, failure to 
print the CIP data in the book, and failure to send the printed book immediately upon publication. 

These issues aside, 40% of library respondents said that the inclusion of additional prominent non- 
U.S. publishers in the CIP program would have a significant or extremely significant positive impact. 
Fifty-seven percent of MARC customers rated the inclusion of prominent non-U. S. publishers as 
having a significantly positive impact. 

Recommendations. 


(6G.) CRG recommends that the CIP office suspend those publishers who are not in full 
compliance. 


82 




(6H.) CRG also recommends that the CIP program identify (with the input of the CIP Advisory 

Group and LC’s selection and recommending officers) a small number of non-U. S. publishers 
not currently in the CIP program but whose works are collected by LC and widely acquired 
by the nation’s libraries. If resources permit, CIP staff should invite these publishers to 
participate in the CIP program if they have the resources to ensure full compliance with CIP 
policy. 

7. Service to Publishers. 

CIP staff provide support to publishers when they request CIP data. CIP staff provide initial review 
of incoming applications. They review requests for changes forwarding some to catalogers and 
processing others. They provide information regarding CIP policy and procedures. They resolve 
some technical and cataloging problems and refer others to automation specialists and catalogers. 
They monitor and research overdue or urgently requested CIP data. And they review and send 
completed CIP data to the publishers. 

The Electronic CIP system is the principal means by which CIP data applications are submitted. 
Effective January 1, 2007, it became the sole mechanism for submitting applications with some 
exceptions for certain works consisting mainly of tables, charts and graphs and certain works with 
diacritics in the front matter. 

Publisher Liaison Service. 

When publishers rated their level of satisfaction with the courtesy of publisher liaisons, 68% said they 
were satisfied or very satisfied. Sixty-four percent were satisfied or very satisfied with the technical 
expertise of publisher liaisons while 58% were satisfied or very satisfied with their email 
communications, and 41% percent were satisfied or very satisfied with telephone availability of 
publisher liaisons. 

Recommendations. 


(7A.) CRG acknowledges the favorable comments that publishers have made about publisher liaison 
service and specific publisher liaisons as well as the generally favorable ratings. CRG also 
recognizes that the CIP Division Administrative Assistant position and several publisher 
liaison positions have been vacant for a number of years and that these positions are critical to 
providing support to publishers. CRG, however, also recognizes a theme of unhappiness 
regarding telephone and email communication and therefore recommends that every effort 
should be made to address these concerns within the limits of current available resources. 

CRG recommends that CIP management periodically review the status of incoming email 
communications to ensure that they are answered in a timely manner. CRG also recommends 
that publisher liaisons copy all outgoing publisher communications to a CIP office folder so 
the communications can be reviewed periodically for accuracy and completeness. 


83 



(7B.) CRG also recommends that the publisher liaisons’ performance evaluations always includes an 
appraisal of telephone service and email service. 

(7C.) CRG also notes CIP management’s concerns with technical problems related to redirecting 
calls from the front office phone to the publisher liaisons’ network. CRG recommends that 
ITS resources be made available to provide a complete review of the CIP Division telephone 
system to obtain improvements and fuller coverage to the extent possible as well as to 
implement any available technologies that would aid quality review . 

Electronic CIP System. 

When publishers rated their level of satisfaction with the Electronic CIP system, 66% said they were 
satisfied or very satisfied. Publisher comments indicate, however, that many would like the option of 
submitting their applications in PDF format 

When the ECIP system was being designed, the CIP Division surveyed publishers to determine if 
there was a prevailing format that the publishing community used for working with manuscripts and 
galleys in an electronic environment. Publishers, however, used a variety of applications. The only 
common denominator was ASCII. Consequently, ECIP was built as an ASCII-based system. This 
determination has served the CIP program well as the ASCII text provided by the publisher can be 
readily manipulated by the TCEC application which greatly facilitates the cataloging process and 
substantially reduces keying. It also enables catalogers to readily copy tables of contents into the 
note field and also means that this ASCII data can be indexed and searched by Internet users. 

PDF poses some special challenges because the PDF text cannot be readily manipulated in the same 
manner as ASCII. Even if the PDF file were sent in a manner that could be converted to ASCII, 
conversion programs would be required and after conversion editing would likely be required to add 
codes that would determine the beginning and end of the physical title page, copyright page, series 
page, etc. The ECIP Traffic Manager would also require substantial change. 

Recommendation. 


(7D.) In an effort to acknowledge publisher desire to submit PDFs, CRG recommends that CIP 
management and automation staff explore the possibility of modifying the ECIP system to 
accommodate PDFs. Specifically, CRG recommends exploration of a “hybrid” system that 
would require the usual application form but with attached ASCII text limited to the title 
page, copyright page, series title page, and table of contents plus sample chapters in PDF. 
Some publishers who have expressed a keen interest in submitting PDF instead of ASCII have 
indicated that this compromise “hybrid” system would be acceptable. This would facilitate 
data request submission from their side as they could use the PDF files that are immediately 
available to them while greatly minimizing the amount of text they would have to convert to 
ASCII. It should also be viable for the descriptive cataloging process as the essential 
elements that TCEC uses would be available in ASCII. The PDF files could also be attached 


84 



via a link to the online record in those instances when the publisher indicated (via check box 
in the CIP data application form) that the text could be made available as sample. 

CIP data service to publishers. 

Currently publishers obtain CIP data in one way: publisher liaisons send the data via email to the 
publisher as soon as the record is complete. Publisher liaisons also resend data in the same manner if 
it is misplaced. CIP data is also sent by U S. Postal Service though this occurs less frequently now 
that ECIP is the principal mechanism for publishers to obtain CIP data. 

Recommendation. 

(7E .) CRG recommends that the CIP program explore the possibility of providing publishers other 
options for obtaining CIP data. Specifically, CRG recommends exploring the possibility of 
modifying the ECIP publishers main menu to enable publishers to readily obtain CIP data by 
LCCN and/or ISBN without the assistance of the publisher liaison. Publishers should also 
have the options of obtaining data in a variety of ways, e g. MARC, PDF, or card image. 

(The MARC format because publishers market their titles via the Internet. PDF because it 
ensures accurate transmission of data that include diacritics.) CRG also recommends 
exploration of a data delivery service that is determined by frequency and that can be pulled 
ad hoc by the user or pushed periodically to the user via a predetermined user profile. 

ONIX service to publishers. 

Most publishers (94.5%) currently participating in the CIP program do not currently create ONIX 
records. The ONIX format, however, is growing in popularity as it provides publishers a standard 
format for managing and communicating publishing data to booksellers and others who facilitate 
access to bibliographic information. To date, mainly large publishers have undertaken the effort to 
create ONIX data. Most small publishers lack the knowledge and/or resources. 

Recommendation. 


(7F .) CRG recommends that the CIP program explore the possibility of providing publishers the 

option of obtaining an ONIX record when applying for and obtaining CIP data. Specifically, 
CRG recommends exploring the possibility of modifying the ECIP publishers CIP Data 
application form to include an additional and optional page. By invoking the option, the 
publisher would access the ONIX data element page. This page would enable the publisher 
to enter ONIX data elements unique to the title. Other recurring data elements unique to the 
publisher or imprint could recur as default elements after they were initially filled in. Some 
software development would be required to convert the data elements to the ONIX structure. 
Once developed and implemented the ONIX records would be created and transmitted 
automatically and transparently with only publisher liaison review. 


85 




8 . 


Future Services. 


Online CIP service to libraries. 

Currently libraries obtain CIP data in four basic ways: by copying it from the printed book; by 
subscribing to the Library’s Cataloging Distribution Service’s MARC record distribution service 
(though these libraries are few in number); by obtaining the data from the LC catalog; or by obtaining 
the data from an intermediary such as OCLC or a book seller (who receives the data from the 
Library’s Cataloging Distribution Service’s MARC record distribution service). 

When libraries were asked if they would like to receive CIP data in machine-readable form directly 
from LC, 38% said yes. When they were asked if they would like to have sets of CIP records sent to 
them according to a specific profile (e g., CIP records for a specific classification number of number 
range), 33.6% said yes. Some comments indicate that these numbers may have been even higher had 
some respondents not been concerned about a possible cost factor. 

Representatives of the school library community have also often expressed the need for a easy and 
direct mechanism for small libraries to readily access Library of Congress records. 

Recommendation. 


(8A.) CRG recommends that the CIP program explore the possibility of developing a free and user- 
friendly mechanism for libraries to readily obtain CIP records in a variety of ways including: 
(1) the mode of selection, e g., by LCCN and/or ISBN for individual or sets of records; (2) 
the format, e g., MARC, PDF or card image; and (3) the frequency, e g., pulled ad hoc by the 
user or pushed periodically to the user via predetermined user profile. 

Preliminary discussions of such a service suggest that the cost for setting it up would be 
modest while the benefit to the library community would be significant. 

9. PCN Program. 

The PCN program is a well-defined and extremely cost-effective component of the CIP operation. 
The program is maintained by a small group of technicians-the staff of the CIP Publisher Liaison 
Team who support the program as an adjunct to their CIP program duties. Because all PCN 
functions are performed within the EPCN system, they are mainly automated The information 
elements provided by publishers are automatically converted into a MARC-formatted IBC record by 
the liaison with a click of the mouse. Given this high degree of automation and efficiency and given 
the role that the EPCN system serves as an interface between publishers and the Library of Congress, 
CRG believes that the PCN program is a fertile area for greater innovation and a possible source of a 
rich array of data elements about forthcoming titles that are potentially valuable to the Library of 
Congress, book sellers, readers, and especially the library community. CRG also believes that these 
enhancements could be obtained at a relatively modest cost. 


86 




CRG also recognizes other important aspects of the PCN program including the following: the 
important role that the PCN program plays as an option for publishers not willing or able to 
participate in the CIP program; the value of the LCCN (when printed in the book) as an access point 
for libraries and book sellers; the assistance that EPCN IBC records provide during cataloging (for 
those works selected for addition to LC’s collections); the monetary value of PCN books selected for 
the Library’s collections-books, estimated to be more than 50% of the total number of PCN titles, 
that otherwise might not be obtained and/or would have to be purchased; and the value of those PCN 
books not selected for the Library’s collection but which do support the Library’s exchange 
programs. 

Recommendations. 


(9A.) CRG recommends that the EPCN application form be modified to include more detailed 

instructions and examples regarding key data elements (such as the title, subtitle, author, etc.) 
to improve the quality of that data as it subsequently appears in the IBC record. This would 
improve the efficiency of the cataloging that occurs in those many instances when the 
published work is selected for addition to the Library’s collections. 

(9B.) CRG recommends that the EPCN application form be modified to obtain a wider range of 
data elements from the publisher including, for example, sample text, summaries, author 
information, title page, table of contents, etc. 

(9C.) CRG recommends that EPCN IBC records and associated enrichment elements be distributed 
to the library community, vendors, and others. 

(9D.) CRG recommends that the EPCN application form be modified to include a basic subject list. 
This information could support a selection service. 

(9E.) CRG recommends that CIP and ITS staff explore the possibility of making the EPCN process 
entirely automated so the submission of the EPCN application form by the publisher would 
invoke the LCCN assignment and IBC record creation. Presumably this would have 
validation routines to ensure inclusion of mandated fields, spell checker, etc. 

10. Selection. 

While the principal purpose of this report is to evaluate the CIP program and, to a lesser extent, the 
PCN program, CRG was also tasked with reviewing the selection process as it relates to CIP 
activities. To this end, CRG met with the Selection Librarians to discuss options that might improve 
that process. Some CRG members also had the opportunity to meet with Barbara Morland, Head, 
Main Reading Room I, whose staff include a large number of Recommending Officers. As 
Recommending Officers and Selection Librarians have duties that share some common features, CRG 
also discussed options that might facilitate their work. 

Specifically, CRG suggested that the ECIP Traffic Manager system might be modified to display a 


87 



menu listing ten or twelve broad subject categories of recently cataloged ECIPs. Selecting a given 
category would display a list of more specific subjects (within that broad category) and selecting a 
specific subject would display a list of all titles in the ECIP system relevant to that subject and 
cataloged within the past 30 or 60 days. Selecting a specific title would display the application form 
and galley—complete with the title page, table of contents, summary, author information, sample text, 
etc.—as well as a link to the catalog record. Review of this information would presumably provide 
sufficient insight of forthcoming titles to enable the selector/recommender to make a determination 
and then record that determination with an appropriate code in the catalog record. When the book is 
published and sent to the Library, technician staff that first search the work could process the work in 
accordance with the information provided during the earlier selection process. The work would in 
effect be pre-selected. 

Selection Librarians did not think that this functionality would significantly improve the selection 
process as the published book in hand contained evidence necessary to determine the quality of the 
work and its suitability for LC collections. Barbara Morland, however, thought that the possibility of 
reviewing forthcoming works via the ECIP Traffic Manager might be a useful tool, additional to their 
current manner of reviewing books, to facilitate the recommending process as there are a large 
number of Recommending Officers and it is not always possible for them to come to the CIP Division 
to review the book in hand. The concept of reviewing forthcoming works within a specific subject 
area might also be helpful to Recommending Officers as their focus is subject specific. Works not 
pertinent to their specific subject of interest serve only to obfuscate the recommending process. 

In the course of these conversations, the Selection Librarians also suggested that the selection 
process could be improved for clinical medical titles if the catalog records for all works cataloged by 
the National Library of Medicine had a default setting of “keep 2" instead of “keep 1" as is the case 
now. Current procedures enable Selection Librarians to change the default from 2 to 1 (in those 
instances when two copies are not required), but make it cumbersome to change from “1" to “2". 
Selection Librarians, therefore, would increase the likelihood of obtaining the required copies of 
works in this subject area for the Library’s collections if the default was set to “2". 

Recommendations. 


(10A.) CRG recommends that the default settings for the cataloging templates of all NLM staff who 
catalog ECIP works be changed to “keep 2". 

(10B) CRG recommends that CIP staff, ITS staff, and staff responsible for recommending and 

selection duties examine further the feasibility of modifying the ECIP Traffic Manager system 
to facilitate the recommendation and selection process (as described above) and that the ECIP 
system be modified accordingly assuming the changes are not unduly complex and time 
consuming and assuming the changes would likely improve the efficiency of the 
recommending and/or selection process. 


88 



Nexus-A CIP Strategy for the Future 


Nexus: 1. A means of connection; a link or tie. 

2. A connected series or group. 3. The core or center. 

The CIP program provides the library community an essential and valuable service. The 
survey findings and this report unequivocally validate the program’s mission. 

The program’s fundamental assumption—that libraries benefit from cataloging books in 
advance of publication—is valid. Ninety-two percent of library respondents-school libraries, public 
libraries, academic libraries, special libraries-rated the CIP program important or very important 
because it saves resources, it standardizes cataloging, it improves the quality of cataloging, and it 
speeds books and services to users. Seventy-nine percent of MARC customers also rated the 
program as important or very important for similar reasons while more than 80% of publisher 
respondents valued the program highly for its marketing value and increased sales. Libraries, MARC 
customers, and publishers also rated the accuracy of CIP data highly. The library community clearly 
wants the CIP program to continue and they want it to expand. 

The success of the program is in large part driven by its efficiency. The program is premised 
on efficiency. Expend minimum resources; obtain maximum results. Catalog a book once (not 
many times) and enable many libraries (not one) to benefit. Ninety percent of all books cataloged by 
the CIP program are added to the Library’s collections. In other words, most of the books in the 
CIP program are books that the Library would catalog regardless of the CIP program. If the 
Library is going to catalog most of these works in any event and absorb the cost of cataloging these 
books, then the cataloging should be done in such a way as to benefit as many libraries as possible. 

There are costs associated with Library of Congress cataloging, but the benefits are 
enormous. The average book costs $125 to catalog. CIP cataloging costs more ($130) mainly 
because of the CIP verification process. These costs are higher than those of other libraries because 
the Library’s costs include the development and maintenance of authority files, classification 
schedules, rule interpretations, MARC formats, and a host of other tools that enable the cataloging 
process. These tools are used by other libraries to facilitate their cataloging work, which helps to 
keep their costs down. Differences in staffing also account for differences in cost. Most libraries 
engage a larger number of paraprofessional and technician staff in the cataloging process than does 
the Library. 

The benefits of Library of Congress cataloging are broad and substantial. Virtually all U.S. 
libraries (not to mention libraries throughout the world) use Library of Congress cataloging, 
especially CIP cataloging because CIP cataloging represents the most current books—the books 
most in demand. The CIP program supports book ordering, book processing, cataloging, access, 
circulation, and other important library functions. It is an important component of many of the 
products and services provided by MARC customers. And it helps publishers communicate 
information about forthcoming books to book vendors, libraries, and readers. CRG believes that the 


89 


cost-benefit ratio of the CIP program is exemplary and that the CIP program will prove (as library 
managers undertake a systematic appraisal of all Library programs) to be among the most cost- 
effective programs that the Library provides. 

The economics of the CIP program serve the Library well. The CIP program obtains more 
than three million dollars worth of books annually at no cost (other than the cataloging costs noted 
above and the usual costs of handling incoming books). These books play an important role in 
building the Library’s collections and supporting the Library’s exchange program. The economics 
of the CIP program serve the library community well. Beyond the benefits noted above, the CIP 
process affects record cost across the bibliographic community, ensuring affordable access to the 
nation’s knowledge and creativity. The participation of the Library of Congress and the National 
Library of Medicine and more recently the National Agriculture Library, Cornell University Library, 
Northwestern University Library, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Library in the CIP 
process help to ensure that the cost to access information is not leveraged up unnecessarily by 
factors beyond the control of the library community. 

Resource constraints, however, demand change. The reduction of Library cataloging 
resources means that Library cataloging staff will be challenged to maintain current production 
levels, but it does not mean that the CIP program must downsize nor that the Library’s 
responsibilities are lessened. To the contrary, they increase. The Library must employ its leadership 
role to ensure that the Library and the library community work more closely together than ever 
before. The Library must develop a strategy that includes the library community in its broadest 
sense-one that includes smaller and medium-sized libraries, public and school libraries, and not just 
the larger research libraries as has been the tendency in the past. 

The new strategy must employ automation and Internet technology as fully and aggressively 
as possible. As a result of the dramatic drop in hardware costs over the past ten years, computers 
are broadly available throughout the library community. As a result of the proliferation of the 
Internet, Internet connectivity is broadly available, if not ubiquitous. The new strategy must employ 
these tools to involve the library community more fully in the CIP process. It must also use these 
tools to more fully enhance the catalog record with a range of enriching data elements, to distribute 
records in a timelier and more user-friendly manner to libraries, publishers and readers, and to ensure 
that the investment of human resources is minimal and overall costs are low. 

The library community, for its part, must take a lesson from the Internet. The Internet was 
initially premised on a strategy of dispersed resources to ensure that the system would remain viable 
even if one part of the system was diminished. The library community has a long history of 
networking. Its penchant to associate and provide members mutual support dates to the turn of the 
19th century. But where the CIP program is concerned, the cataloging has always been done by the 
Library of Congress and the National Library of Medicine. A fuller community commitment is now 
required. This does not mean all libraries, nor is it to suggest a hardship for any particular library. 
But it does mean some libraries making some contributions. This will strengthen the program’s 
viability and enable it to expand. The CIP program belongs to the library community. Commitment 
ensures that ownership. 


90 


The publishing community is also an important partner in the CIP process. The publisher 
survey sought feedback regarding the possibility of select libraries assisting in the CIP cataloging 
process. Sixty-six percent of respondents thought this would have positive or significant positive 
impact Four percent thought it would have negative or significant negative impact, and 30% 
thought the issue was not applicable or had no impact. 

As partners in the CIP process, publishers have concerns. Their participation comes with a 
cost. Staff time and other resources are required to prepare and submit CIP applications. The ECIP 
system has reduced those costs—eliminating postage and courier service costs, photocopying, and 
mail handling. ECIP has also improved overall throughput time. But a fuller application of 
automation and a fuller participation of the publishing community would provide greater efficiencies 
and greater benefits for all partners. 

Enhancements to the ECIP system would enable publishers to include enriching data 
elements that would provide greater exposure and marketability for their publications. 

Enhancements to EPCN (in conjunction with training select publishers to provide data elements in a 
form that helps facilitate the cataloging process) could result in enriched IBC (Initial Bibliographic 
Control) records being created that might be eligible for distribution. Reengineering the ECIP 
system to accommodate a hybrid ASCII/PDF or other page layout design applications would 
facilitate the CIP process for publishers. 

CRG believes that the CIP program is sound and that many of the pieces are in place to 
ensure a successful future. CRG also believes that this successful future can be best realized by 
employing a strategy of partnerships facilitated by a fuller application of automation and Internet 
technology. It is a strategy that requires the Library of Congress to provide leadership and to serve 
a pivotal role in a nexus that links libraries, publishers, and readers. It is also a strategy that will 
provide ample benefits for libraries, publishers, and readers while minimizing costs. 

The National Library of Medicine has for decades cataloged clinical medical titles for the 
CIP program. Publishers submitted applications and galleys to the CIP office, and couriers relayed 
them to NLM. When the cataloging was complete, couriers returned the galleys and Library of 
Congress staff added LCSH, formatted the CIP data, and sent the data to the publisher. The ECIP 
Cataloging Partners program built on this model. Now when Cornell University Press, 

Northwestern Press, and Wisconsin University Press submit applications via ECIP, they are relayed 
to Cornell University Library, Northwestern University Library, and Wisconsin University Library 
respectively where they are cataloged. When complete, CIP staff email the data to the publishers. 
The National Agriculture Library serves in this same manner for agriculture titles. 

This is the basic model for the nexus strategy. But it must be expanded. More libraries must 
participate, mapping their special area of interest or expertise to select subject areas like cookbooks, 
“how-to” books, pet books, etc. But participation should not be limited to only the NLM model 
that requires a participant to do full BIBCO level cataloging. There are many pieces to the 
cataloging process, and participants should be encouraged to help with some of these pieces such as 
Dewey Decimal Classification, juvenile headings, summaries, etc. Other options are cataloging 


91 


editions when copy exists and performing CIP verification. 

This strategy also calls for more than just traditional cataloging. It also calls for the 
provision of more enriching elements. The success of Amazon.com amply demonstrates that readers 
want more than just the conventional catalog record. They want as much information as they can 
get-book jackets, summaries, reviews, author information, etc. The nexus strategy can facilitate this 
by modifying the ECIP system and by providing libraries and publishers convenient tools to both 
contribute and access enriching elements. 

This strategy entails more participants doing a greater variety of tasks and creating or 
contributing a greater variety of data elements. The ECIP system has proven a dependable platform 
to implement this strategy. It reliably links libraries and publishers to process thousands of CIP 
applications. It provides convenient and secure access to authorized partners. It moves and 
manages a broad range of data to facilitate cataloging and record enrichment. It includes modules 
like TCEC that greatly improve the efficiency of cataloging. The nexus strategy calls for more 
participation and more data elements. Some additional automation enhancements will be required 
but much of the design and development for these enhancements has already been done as 
experimental development within the CIP Program. Completion of that work will provide the 
additional tools required to implement this strategy. They will enable the CIP program to manage a 
broad range of cataloging partners doing a variety of tasks. They will enable publishers to submit 
more data elements. And they will enable readers to access a full array of information about 
forthcoming books and then request those books directly from their local library. This in broad 
strokes is the nexus strategy. Implementation requires the following action: 

1. Promote the nexus strategy and the leadership role that the Library plays in linking libraries, 
publishers, and readers to a broad range of information about current books. Inform libraries 
of the importance of the economic benefits and efficiencies obtained from the CIP process 
and the participation of partners. 

2. Modify the ECIP system to enable publishers to submit a greater number of CIP data 
elements and enriching elements. Modify the change request form so the publisher can 
submit enriching elements for works already cataloged by the Library of Congress. 

3. Explore modifying the ECIP system to accommodate PDFs and other page layout 
applications. 

4. Complete experimental development that has already been undertaken to provide cataloging 
partners controlled access to ECIP, a mechanism to manage their tasks, and a mechanism to 
contribute reviews and other enriching elements. The system could also facilitate 
networking between libraries and thereby facilitate cooperative efforts. 

5. Modify the EPCN system to enable the publisher to submit a greater number of data 
elements and enriching elements. Provide EPCN publishers more detailed guidance for 


92 


completing EPCN applications to ensure a higher quality EPCN record. Distribute EPCN 
records with enriched elements so other libraries can use these records and enhance them. 

(In many instances the associated enrichment elements should be sufficient to facilitate 
cataloging without the book in hand.) Exploit the EPCN system more fully as a laboratory 
for automated or semi-automated cataloging. 

6. Develop a resource file to store a variety of enriching elements: EPCN records (currently 
stored in the LC database), OCLC-verified CIP records for which LC has yet to obtain the 
book, etc. 

7. Identify select libraries with specific skills and interests to participate in all or some aspects 
of the CIP process. Also research current CIP publisher participants to identify specialty 
publishers (e.g., knitting, autos, cookbooks, pet books, etc.) that can be mapped to libraries 
with the interests and resources that can support cataloging tasks for works produced by 
these publishers. 

8. Consider the needs of smaller and medium-sized libraries as cooperative cataloging partners, 
and provide guidance, training, and automation applications when available and appropriate 
to promote cooperative cataloging using the EC IP system. 

9. Explore the possibility of obtaining fuller value from catalog records by re-purposing data 
for one format for another and/or exploiting data in unique and creative ways. For example, 
convert ink print records to audio records or ebook records with the addition of elements 
unique to ebooks or audio works obtained from publishers via templates that facilitate an 
automated process of data migration and record creation. 

10. Develop a user-friendly application to enable libraries, publishers, and readers to readily 
access CIP records, other LC records, and sets of records in a variety of formats. 

11. Develop a service to periodically send sets of new CIP records (determined by predefined 
profiles) to Congressional staff offices and libraries. 

12. Develop a user-friendly application to enable libraries to readily access the Library’s resource 
file of enriching data. 

13. Develop a homepage with recent CIP records organized by broad class numbers and an RSS 
(Really Simple Sindication) alert service to notify readers and researchers when classes are 
refreshed. 

14. Develop a public access application to enable readers to readily search forthcoming books, 
display forthcoming book information with a complete array of enriching elements (including 
sample text), and link to their local library to request those books. For Selection Librarians 
this display could be modified to send a claim to the publisher to ensure prompt receipt of 
the book upon publication. 


93 


15. Develop an electronic MARC service for the distribution of all enriching data or select types 
of enriching data, e g., summaries, reviews, TOCs, etc. 

16. Examine the feasibility of developing an optional ECIP front end that would accommodate a 
batch ONIX feed of forthcoming books. 


94 


Bibliography 


A Monster and a Miracle: The Cataloging Distribution Service of the Library of Congress, 1901- 
1976 by Paul Edlund, Library of Congress, 1978. 

American Library Association. Subcommittee on the Revision of the Guidelines on Subject Access 
to Individual Works of Fiction. Guidelines on Subject Access to Individual Works of Fiction, 
Drama, etc. 2 nd ed. Chicago: ALA, 2000. 

Bibliographic Access Divisions Strategic Plan FY2003-2008. “Goal IV, Objective 1.” 

Calhoun, Karen. The Changing Nature of the Catalog and its Integration with Other Discovery 
Tools. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Library, 2006. 

IFLA Survey of CIP Programs. 

Library of Congress. Cataloging in Publication Division. Electronic Cataloging in Publication 
Program, http://cip.loc.gov/ 

Library of Congress. Cataloging in Publication Division. Electronic Preassigned Control Number 
Program, http://pcn.loc.gov/ 

OCLC. Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: a Report to the OCLC Membership. 
Dublin, OH: OCLC, 2005. 

SKP Associates. The Cataloging in Publication Program Survey Findings. Washington: Library of 
Congress, 1993. 

Strategic Workflow Initiative Group Report to the Bibliographic Access Management Team, 2004. 
“Cataloging in Publication” and “CIP Verification.” 

Written Comments From All Surveys: Missouri State University Research Survey on Cataloging in 
Publication (CIP) and Subject Headings for School Librarians, 2006. 


95 




2006 CIP Survey 

MARC Customers Survey 


Section I - Organization Profile 


Chief Respondent: 

Title: 

Name of organization: 

Phone: 

Email: 

Homepage: 

1. Categorize your organization. 

a. Library 

b. Bibliographic utility _ 

c. Book wholesaler 

d. System vendor _ 

e. Bibliographic product vendor 

f. Other:_ _ 


2. What is the approximate number of book bibliographic records in your database? 


3. Of the total number given in question 2, estimate the percentage of LC CIP records or records 
that were formerly CIP (i.e., records produced through the LC CIP Program). 


4. What is the approximate number of book bibliographic records added to your database in the last 
full year (either fiscal year or calendar year)? 


Section II - Current CIP Product 


5. List all products and services that your organization produces which contain LC CIP data Then 
estimate the percentage of LC CIP data in each product and service 

a. _ _ % 


96 











b. _ % 

c. _ % 

d. _ % 

e. _ % 

f. % 

g. _ % 

h. _ % 

i. _ % 

j. _ % 

6. Do you use LC CIP cataloging before the book is published?_yes _no 

7. Do you use LC CIP data printed in the book?_yes_no 


Use the following rating scale for questions 8-19: 

0 - Not applicable 

1 - Not useful 

2 - Somewhat useful 

3 - Useful 

4 - Very useful 

8. Rate the usefulness of receiving LC subject headings for medical titles when the National Library 
of Medicine (NLM) subject headings are present on the same record: __ 

9 Rate the usefulness of receiving NLM subject headings for medical titles when LC subject 
headings are present on the same record: _ 

10. Rate the usefulness of LC juvenile subject headings for juvenile fiction _ 

11 Rate the usefulness of LC juvenile subject headings for juvenile non-fiction: _ 

12. Rate the usefulness of the series statement(s): _ 

13. Rate the usefulness of: 


97 




































a. summary notes in general: _ 

b. juvenile fiction summary' notes : _ 

c. juvenile non-fiction summary notes : _ 

d. publisher-supplied summary notes . _ 

14. Rate the usefulness of table of contents notes : 

15. Rate the usefulness of hyperlinks providing access for the following: 

a. table of contents :_ 

b. publisher description :_ 

c. contributor biographical information :_ 

d sample text : _ 

e. reviews :_ 

16. Rate the usefulness of genre headings (e g., science fiction, western, detective/mystery) in LC 

CIP records for works of American fiction: _ 

Note: Questions 17-20 ask for your input on the usefulness of specific data elements in three 
different CIP products: the CIP Data as printed in the book, the pre-publication bibliographic 
record, and the updated/upgraded bibliographic record based on the published book. 

17. For the LC CIP data in the book, rate the usefulness for each of the data elements listed below: 

a. Library of Congress Control Number _ 

b. International Standard Book Number _ 

c. LC call number __ 

d. NLM call number 

e. Decimal classification number 

f. Main entry _ 

g. Title _ 

h. Edition statement 

i. Series _ 

j. Juvenile literature summary notes 

k. Other summary notes _ 

l. Bibliographical references and/or index notes 

m. LC subject headings _ 

n. LC juvenile subject headings 

o NLM subject headings __ 

p. Added entries _ 

18. For the LC CIP cataloging in MARC format for pre-publication records, rate the usefulness 
for each of the data elements listed below: 


98 





















a. International Standard Book Number 

b. LC call number 

c. NLM call number _ 

d. Decimal classification number _ 

e. Main entry 

f. Title _ 

g. Edition statement 

h. Series _ 

i. Juvenile literature summary notes _ 

j. Other summary notes _ 

k. Bibliographical references and/or index notes _ 

l. Table of contents 

m. LC subject headings _ 

n. LC juvenile subject headings 

o. NLM subject headings _ 

p. Added entries _ 

q. Projected publication date _ 

19. For the LC CIP cataloging in MARC format for post-publication records, rate the usefulness 
for each of the data elements listed below: 

a. International Standard Book Number _ 

b. LC call number 

c. NLM call number _ 

d. Decimal classification number _ 

e. Main entry _ 

f. Title _ 

g. Edition statement _ 

h. Physical description _ 

i. Series _ 

j. Juvenile literature summary notes _ 

k. Other summary notes _ 

l. Bibliographical references and/or index notes _ 

m. Table of contents _ 

n. LC subject headings _ 

o. LC juvenile subject headings _ 

p. NLM subject headings _ 

q. Added entries _ 


Use the following rating scale for questions 20-21: 


0 - Not applicable 
1 - Poor 


99 
































2 - Good 

3 - Very good 

4 - Excellent 

20. Rate the bibliographic accuracy (e g., accuracy in choice and form of access points and 
notes) of CIP cataloging for each of the data elements listed below: 

a. International Standard Book Number _ 

b. LC call number _ 

c. NLM call number __ 

d. Decimal classification number _ 

e. Main entry _ 

f. Title _ 

g. Edition statement _ 

h. Physical description _ 

i. Series _ 

j. Juvenile literature summary notes _ 

k. Other summary notes _ 

l. Bibliographical references and/or index notes _ 

m. Table of contents _ 

n. LC subject headings _ 

o. LC juvenile subject headings _ 

p. NLM subject headings 

q. Added entries _ 

21. Rate the typographical accuracy of CIP cataloging: _ 

Use the following rating scale for questions 22-23: 

0 - Not applicable 

1 - No importance 

2 - Some importance 

3 - Important 

4 - Very important 

22. Rate the importance of the following benefits of the LC CIP Program to your organization: 

a. Improvement in quality of cataloging 

b Standardization of bibliographic records 

c. Redirection of funds for other purposes __ 

d. Speed books to users _ 

e. Enhance products or services (e g., bibliographies, alert services, etc.) for your 
customers 


100 
























f. Speed products or services (e g., bibliographies, alert services, etc.) to your 

customers _ 

g. Other: _ _ 

23. Rate the overall importance of the LC CIP Program to your organization: _ 

24. Comments: 


Section II - Possible Future CIP Product 


25. If LC CIP data is not printed in the book, do you need some indication in the book that an LC 

CIP record is available online? _yes __no _not sure 

26. If LC were to limit the updating/completing of CIP records to only those books being kept in 
the LC collections (therefore excluding books such as large print editions), approximately 10% of 
the 54,000 LC CIP records each year would not be updated by LC. Would this reduction in the 
number of LC-completed CIP records be acceptable to you? 

_yes_no _not sure 

27. If LC were to discontinue updating/completing CIP records upon receipt of the published book, 

would this be acceptable to you? _yes _no _not sure 

Use the following rating scale for questions 28-31. 

0 - Not applicable / no impact 

1 - Significant negative impact 

2 - Negative impact 

3 - Positive impact 

4 - Significant positive impact 

28 If the Library of Congress can enhance the LC CIP record with the following publisher- 
provided data, evaluate the impact that each enhancement might have on your operations: 

a Book jacket image _ 

b Book jacket blurb _ 

c. Book index(es) _ 

d. Sample text _ 

e. Additional author information _ 

f. Book reviews 


101 















g. Publisher homepage 

h. URL for online purchase of book _ 

i. Price 

29. Evaluate the impact on your operations that may result if the types of publications listed below, 
currently out-of-scope, were cataloged as part of the LC CIP program: 

a. Audio discs/tapes _ 

b. Video discs/tapes _ 

c. Slide sets and filmstrips _ 

d. Multimedia packages ___ 

e. Mass market paperbacks _ 

f. Textbooks below college level 

g. Microforms originally published in other formats _____ 

h. Musical scores _ 

i. Expendable educational materials (workbooks, teachers manuals, etc.) _ 

j. E-books _ 

k. Self-published (books paid for or subsidized by individual authors or published by a 

house publishing the works of only one author) _ 

l. Prominent non-U. S. publishers (exclusive of multinationals that list a U S. city in the 

imprint) _ 

30. Evaluate the impact on your operations that may result if the types of publications listed below 
were no longer cataloged as part of the LC CIP program: 

a. Large print editions _ 

b. Clinical medical titles _ 

c. Non-English publications (currently, Spanish)_ 

d. "How to" or do-it-yourself manuals_ 

e. College level or above textbooks_ 

f. Devotional/inspirational books_ 

g. Phonics books_ 

h. Repackaged editions including boxed sets_ 

i. Children’s books that are derived (“tie-ins”) from movies, TV shows, comics, video 
games, toys, food, etc. _____ 

j. Chapter books designed for beginning readers_ 

31. If LC does not provide new series authority records based on pre-publication information, but 

waits until the published book is received and the cataloging is completed to perform the authority 
work, please evaluate the impact on your operations: _ 

32. Comments: 


102 

























Section IV - Electronic Preassigned Control Number (EPCN) 


33. The EPCN program automatically creates brief records from publisher-provided information for 

forthcoming books not included in the LC CIP program. Would you be interested in receiving these 
records? _yes _no 

34. Comments: 


Glossary for the MARC Customer Survey 


Contributor biographical information: Additional information on author(s), editors(s), and other 
contributors, supplied by the publisher, stored on an LC server, and accessed via a hyperlink in the 
bibliographic record. 

Enhance the LC CIP record: To add to the bibliographic record data supplied by the publisher. 

EPCN program: In the Electronic Preassigned Card Number program, the Library of Congress 
assigns a Library of Congress control number before the book is published, so that the control 
number may be printed in the published book. A brief catalog record is created by program using 
data supplied by the publisher. 

Genre headings: Terms indicating the genre, form, and/or physical characteristics of the materials 
being described. Used in MARC field 655. 

Hyperlinks: The electronic location and access field (MARC field 856) is used to provide 
hyperlinks to files stored on the LC server. These files are not provided as eye-readable text within 
the bibliographic record; the hyperlinks must be followed to access the information. These files also 
contain words and phrases that may be searched on the Internet. 

Juvenile fiction summary notes: Summaries for juvenile fiction titles cataloged as part of the CIP 
Program are created by catalogers on the Children’s Literature Team, Library of Congress. 

Juvenile non-fiction summary notes: Currently, the Children’s Literature Team does not create 
summaries for juvenile non-fiction. Any summaries given to juvenile non-fiction titles in the CIP 
program are provided by the publisher. 


103 






LC CIP cataloging: This refers to the bibliographic record created by the Library of Congress as 
part of the Cataloging in Publication Program and distributed to libraries, bibliographic utilities, and 
book vendors. The cataloging is based on galleys sent to LC by publishers for books prior to their 
publication. Subsequent to the book’s publication and the receipt of the published book by LC, LC 
staff update the bibliographic record by noting any additions, deletions, or changes in the publication 
information (author(s), title, date of publication, etc.). The updated record is then redistributed. 

LC CIP data: "CIP data" in its broadest sense refers to the bibliographic record created by the 
Library of Congress for a book prior to its publication. Strictly speaking, however, "CIP data" is the 
bibliographic record that appears printed on the verso of the book's title page. It is an abbreviated 
version of the machine-readable record (or MARC record) that resides on the Library's database and 
which is distributed to libraries, bibliographic utilities, and book vendors. 

LC juvenile subject headings: LC subject headings for children’s literature conform to the LC 
Annotated Card Program for juvenile literature section of the Library of Congress Subject Headings. 
These subject headings are denoted by the use of 1 in the first indicator of the 6XX field. 

National Library of Medicine (NLM) subject headings These subject headings are taken from 
the MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) controlled vocabulary thesaurus and are assigned by the 
National Library of Medicine. 

Publisher description: A description of the work, supplied by the publisher, stored on an LC 
server, and accessed via a hyperlink in the bibliographic record. 

Publisher-supplied summaries: CIP publishers may elect to provide summaries for all titles they 
submit to the CIP Program with the exception of juvenile fiction. These summaries must conform to 
guidelines established by the Library of Congress regarding content, style, and formatting. 

Reviews: Third-party book reviews, stored on an LC server, and accessed via a hyperlink in the 
bibliographic record. 

Sample text: Selected text, supplied by the publisher, stored on an LC server, and accessed via a 
hyperlink in the bibliographic record. 

Summary notes: The summary note is a brief and objective statement of what the book is about, 
appears as part of the bibliographic record in eye-readable text, and contains words and phrases that 
may be searched in most online library catalogs. 

Table of contents notes: The formatted contents note appears as part of the bibliographic record in 
eye-readable text and contains words and phrases that may be searched in most online library 
catalogs. 

Table of contents (hyperlink): A contents note stored on an LC server and accessed via a 
hyperlink in the bibliographic record. 


104 


2006 CIP Survey 

Libraries Survey 


Section I - Library Profile 


1. Name of Respondent:_ 

2. Job title:_ 

3. Name of library or library system: _____ 

4. Phone:_ 

5. Email:_ 

6. Homepage:_ 

7. Categorize your library. 

Academic _ 

Public _ 

School 

Pre-K - elementary _ 

Middle school - high school _ 

Special _ 

Other (please specify):_ 

8. Approximate size of your library’s collection: 


a. 

Under 5,000 

b. 

5,000- 15,000 

c. 

15,000- 50,000 

d. 

50,000- 100,000 

e. 

100,000 - 250,000 

f. 

250,000 - 500,000 

g 

500,000- 1,000,000 

h. 

1,000,000- 5,000,000 

i. 

Over 5,000,000 


9. Identify your source(s) of LC CIP cataloging . Choose all that apply. 

Auto-Graphics _ 

Baker & Taylor _ 

Book Where _ 


105 























Bound to Stay Bound _ 

Brodart _ 

Coutts Library Services _ 

Follett Library Resources _ 

Ingram Library Services _ 

LC catalog _ 

LC CIP data printed in the book 

Library consortium _ 

MARCIVE _ 

QCLC _ 

Polaris Library System _ 

RLG _ 

TLC (The Library Corporation) 

YBP Library Services _ 

Z39.50 search _ 

Other (please specify): _ 


Section II - Current CIP Products 


10. Do you use LC CIP cataloging before the book is published?_yes _no 

11. Do you use LC CIP data printed in the book?_yes_no 

Use the following rating scale for questions 12-32: 

0 - Not applicable 

1 - Not useful 

2 - Somewhat useful 

3 -Useful 

4 - Very useful 

12. Rate the usefulness of LC subject headings for medical titles when the National Library of 

Medicine (NLM) subject headings are present on the same record: _ 

13. Rate the usefulness of NLM subject headings for medical titles when LC subject headings are 
present on the same record: ____ 

14. Rate the usefulness of LC juvenile subject headings for juvenile fiction 

15. Rate the usefulness of LC juvenile subject headings for juvenile non-fiction _ 

16. Rate the usefulness of summary notes in general: _ 


106 























17. Rate the usefulness of juvenile fiction summary notes : 

18. Rate the usefulness of juvenile non-fiction summary notes : 

19. Rate the usefulness of publisher-supplied summary notes : _ 

20. Rate the usefulness of table of contents notes : 

21. Rate the usefulness of hyperlinks providing access for table of contents :_ 

22. Rate the usefulness of hyperlinks providing access for publisher description :_ 

23. Rate the usefulness of hyperlinks providing access for contributor biographical information : 


24. Rate the usefulness of hyperlinks providing access for sample text :_ 

25. Rate the usefulness of hyperlinks providing access for reviews :_ 

26. Rate the usefulness of genre headings (e g., science fiction, western, detective/mystery) in LC 
CIP records for works of American fiction: 

27. Rate the usefulness of LC CIP data in the book for the following: 

a. Acquisitions:_ 

b. Cataloging: _ 

c. Routing books to appropriate staff: _ 

d Public service: _ 


28 If there is another aspect of usefulness of LC CIP data in the book not listed above, please 
describe and rate: _ 

29. For the LC CIP data in the book, rate the usefulness for each of the data elements listed below: 

a. Library of Congress Control Number _ 

b International Standard Book Number _ 

c. LC call number _ 

d. NLM call number _ 

e. Decimal classification number _ 

f. Main entry _ 

g. Title _ 

h. Edition statement _ 

i. Series _ 

j. Juvenile literature summary notes _ 


107 





























k. Other summary notes _ 

l. Bibliographical references and/or index notes _ 

m. LC subject headings _ 

n. LC juvenile subject headings _ 

o. NLM subject headings _ 

p. Added entries _ 

30. Rate the usefulness of LC CIP cataloging in MARC format for the following: 

a. Acquisitions: __ 

b. Cataloging: _ 

c. Public service: 


31. If there is another aspect of usefulness of LC CIP cataloging in MARC format not listed 

above, please describe and rate: _ 

32. Rate the usefulness of LC CIP cataloging after LC has received the book and 

upgraded/completed the CIP record: _ 

33. Do you upgrade/complete an LC CIP record in your local catalog?_yes _no 

34. If you upgrade/complete an LC CIP record in your local catalog, do you also upgrade the 

record in your bibliographic utility?_yes_no_not applicable 

35. Regardless of whether you upgrade the CIP record or download the CIP record that another 

library has upgraded, do you ultimately download the LC-completed CIP record when it becomes 
available? _yes _no 

Use the following rating scale for questions 36-37: 

0 - Not applicable 

1 - Not useful 

2 - Somewhat useful 

3 -Useful 

4 - Very useful 

36. For the LC CIP cataloging in MARC format for pre-publication records, rate the usefulness 
for each of the data elements listed below: 

a. International Standard Book Number 

b. LC call number 

c. NLM call number _ 

d. Decimal classification number _ 

e. Main entry _ 


108 










f. Title _ 

g. Edition statement _ 

h. Series _ 

i. Juvenile literature summary notes _ 

j. Other summary notes 

k. Bibliographical references and/or index notes 

l. Table of contents 

m. LC subject headings _ 

n. LC juvenile subject headings 

o. NLM subject headings 

p. Added entries 

q. Projected publication date 

37. For the LC CIP cataloging in MARC format for post-publication records, rate the usefulness 
for each of the data elements listed below: 

a. International Standard Book Number _ 

b. LC call number _ 

c. NLM call number 

d. Decimal classification number 

e. Main entry _ 

f. Title _ 

g. Edition statement _ 

h. Physical description _ 

i. Series _ 

j. Juvenile literature summary notes 

k. Other summary notes 

l. Bibliographical references and/or index notes _ 

m. Table of contents 

n. LC subject headings 

o. LC juvenile subject headings _ 

p. NLM subject headings _ 

q. Added entries 

Use the following rating scale for questions 38-39: 

0 - Not applicable 

1 - Poor 

2 - Good 

3 - Very good 

4 - Excellent 

38. Rate the bibliographic accuracy (eg., accuracy in choice and form of access points and 
notes) of CIP cataloging for each of the data elements listed below: 


109 




a. International Standard Book Number _ 

b. LC call number _ 

c. NLM call number 

d. Decimal classification number _ 

e. Main entry _ 

f. Title _ 

g. Edition statement 

h. Physical description __ 

i. Series _ 

j. Juvenile literature summary notes _ 

k. Other summary notes _ 

l. Bibliographical references and/or index notes _ 

m. Table of contents 

n. LC subject headings _ 

o. LC juvenile subject headings _ 

p. NLM subject headings _ 

q. Added entries _ 

39. Rate the typographical accuracy of CIP cataloging: _ 

Use the following rating scale for questions 40-42: 

0 - Not applicable 

1 - No importance 

2 - Some importance 

3 - Important 

4 - Very important 

40. Rate the importance of the following benefits of the LC CIP Program to your library: 

a. Improvement in quality of cataloging 

b. Standardization of bibliographic records _ 

c. Redirection of funds for other purposes _ 

d. Speed books to users _ 

e. Enhance products or services (e g., bibliographies, alert services, etc.) for your 

customers _ 

f. Speed products or services (e g., bibliographies, alert services, etc.) to customers 

41. If there is a benefit of the LC CIP program to your library not listed above, please describe and 

rate: _ 

42. Rate the overall importance of the LC CIP Program to your library: _ 


110 





43. Comments on Section II: 


Section III - Possible Future CIP Products 


44. Would you be interested in having LC send you MARC CIP records? _yes_no 

45. Would you be interested in having LC send you MARC CIP records according to a profile 

(e g., by classification number, etc.)?_yes _no 

46. If LC CIP data is not printed in the book, do you need some indication in the book that an LC 

CIP record is available online? _yes _ no 

47. If LC were to limit the updating/completing of CIP records to only those books being kept in 
the LC collections (therefore excluding books such as large print editions), approximately 10% of 
the 54,000 LC CIP records each year would not be updated by LC. Would this reduction in the 
number of LC-completed CIP records be acceptable to you? 

_yes_no 

48. If LC were to discontinue updating/completing CIP records upon receipt of the published book, 

would this be acceptable to you? _yes _no 

Use the following rating scale for questions 49-51. 

0 - No impact 

1 - Slight impact 

2 - Some impact 

3 - Significant impact 

4 - Extremely positive impact 

5 - Not applicable 

49. If the Library of Congress can enhance the CIP record with the following publisher-provided 
data, evaluate the positive impact that each enhancement might have on your operations: 

a. Book jacket image _ 


111 








b. Book jacket blurb _ 

c. Book index(es) _ 

d. Sample text __ 

e. Additional author information 

f. Book reviews 

g. Publisher homepage _ 

h. URL for online purchase of book _ 

i. Price _ 

50. Evaluate the positive impact on your operations that may result if the types of publications 
listed below, currently out-of-scope, were cataloged as part of the LC CIP program: 

a. Audio discs/tapes _ 

b. Video discs/tapes ___ 

c. Slide sets and filmstrips _ 

d Multimedia packages _ 

e. Mass market paperbacks _ 

f. Textbooks below college level _ 

g. Microforms originally published in other formats _ 

h. Musical scores _ 

i. Expendable educational materials (workbooks, teachers manuals, etc.) _ 

j. E-books _ 

k. Self-published (books paid for or subsidized by individual authors or published by a 

house publishing the works of only one author) _ 

l. Prominent non-U. S. publishers (exclusive of multinationals that list a U.S. city in the 

imprint) _ 

51. Evaluate the negative impact on your operations that may result if the types of publications listed 
below were no longer cataloged as part of the LC CIP program: 

a. Large print editions_ 

b. Clinical medical titles (NLM would continue to provide CIP cataloging)_ 

c. Non-English publications (currently, Spanish)_ 

d. "How to" or do-it-yourself manuals_ 

e College level or above textbooks_ 

f. Devotional/inspirational books_ 

g. Phonics books_ 

h. Repackaged editions including boxed sets_ 

i. Children’s books that are derived (“tie-ins”) from movies, TV shows, comics, video 

games, toys, food, etc._ 

j. Chapter books designed for beginning readers_ 

Use the following rating scale for question 52. 


112 





















0 - No opinion 

1 - Not interested 

2 - Somewhat interested 

3 - Interested 

4 - Very interested 

52. If LC provided access to its ECIP cataloging system, would your library be interested in 
enhancing CIP records with additional information by providing: 

a. Book jacket image _ 

b. Book jacket blurb 

c. Book index(es) 

d. Sample text _ 

e. Additional author information 

f. Book reviews _ 

g. Publisher homepage _ 

h. URL for online purchase of book 

i. Price _ 

53. How interested would you be in becoming an ECIP cataloging partner with LC and assuming 
responsibility for cataloging ECIPs from specific publishers and/or within specific subject areas? 


54. Comments on Section II: 



55. The EPCN program automatically creates brief records from publisher-provided information for 
forthcoming books not included in the LC CIP program. Would you be interested in receiving these 
records? _yes _no 


113 







56. Comments: 


Glossary for the Library Survey 

Contributor biographical information: Additional information on author(s), editors(s), and other 
contributors, supplied by the publisher, stored on an LC server, and accessed via a hyperlink in the 
bibliographic record. 

ECIP cataloging partner: A library that participates in the electronic CIP program by using the 
ECIP cataloging system and creating bibliographic records for titles submitted for CIP cataloging. 

ECIP cataloging system: A Library of Congress online system designed to aid in the cataloging of 
electronically-submitted works as part of the Cataloging-in-Publication Program. In addition to the 
cataloging module of the LC integrated library system, there are two basic components: (1) Traffic 
Manager, which allows access to the electronic galley submitted by the publisher, and (2) a text 
capture and electronic conversion program to aid in the creation of the bibliographic record. 

Enhance the LC CIP record: To add to the bibliographic record data supplied by the publisher. 

EPCN program: In the Electronic Preassigned Card Number program, the Library of Congress 
assigns a Library of Congress control number before the book is published, so that the control 
number may be printed in the published book. A brief catalog record is created by program using 
data supplied by the publisher. 

Genre headings: Terms indicating the genre, form, and/or physical characteristics of the materials 
being described. Used in MARC field 655. 

Hyperlinks: The electronic location and access field (MARC field 856) is used to provide 
hyperlinks to files stored on the LC server. These files are not provided as eye-readable text within 
the bibliographic record; the hyperlinks must be followed to access the information. These files also 
contain words and phrases that may be searched on the Internet. 

Juvenile fiction summary notes: Summaries for juvenile fiction titles cataloged as part of the CIP 
Program are created by catalogers on the Children’s Literature Team, Library of Congress. 


114 



Juvenile non-fiction summary notes: Currently, the Children’s Literature Team does not create 
summaries for juvenile non-fiction. Any summaries given to juvenile non-fiction titles in the CIP 
program are provided by the publisher. 

LC catalog: The catalog of the Library of Congress may be accessed, and individual records 
retrieved, in two ways: (1) the OP AC - http://catalos.loc.gov/ ; and (2) the Z3 9.50 gateway - 
http: / /www. loc. sov/z3 95 O/satewav. html . 

LC CIP cataloging: This refers to the bibliographic record created by the Library of Congress as 
part of the Cataloging in Publication Program and distributed to libraries, bibliographic utilities, and 
book vendors. The cataloging is based on galleys sent to LC by publishers for books prior to their 
publication. Subsequent to the book’s publication and the receipt of the published book by LC, LC 
staff update the bibliographic record by noting any additions, deletions, or changes in the publication 
information (author(s), title, date of publication, etc ). The updated record is then redistributed. 

LC CIP data: "CIP data" in its broadest sense refers to the bibliographic record created by the 
Library of Congress for a book prior to its publication. Strictly speaking, however, "CIP data" is the 
bibliographic record that appears printed on the verso of the book's title page. It is an abbreviated 
version of the machine-readable record (or MARC record) that resides on the Library's database and 
which is distributed to libraries, bibliographic utilities, and book vendors. 

LC juvenile subject headings: LC subject headings for children’s literature conform to the LC 
Annotated Card Program for juvenile literature section of the Library of Congress Subject Headings. 
These subject headings are denoted by the use of 1 in the first indicator of the 6XX field. 

Library consortium: Cooperative library association, often based on region or type of library. 

National Library of Medicine (NLM) subject headings: These subject headings are taken from 
the MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) controlled vocabulary thesaurus and are assigned by the 
National Library of Medicine. 

OCLC: Online Computer Library Center - a large bibliographic utility located in Ohio. 

Publisher description: A description of the work, supplied by the publisher, stored on an LC 
server, and accessed via a hyperlink in the bibliographic record. 

Publisher-supplied summaries: CIP publishers may elect to provide summaries for all titles they 
submit to the CIP Program with the exception of juvenile fiction. These summaries must conform to 
guidelines established by the Library of Congress regarding content, style, and formatting. 

Reviews: Third-party book reviews, stored on an LC server, and accessed via a hyperlink in the 
bibliographic record. 

RLG: Research Libraries Group - a large bibliographic utility located in California. 


115 




Sample text: Selected text, supplied by the publisher, stored on an LC server, and accessed via a 
hyperlink in the bibliographic record. 

Series statement: the series as it appears on the item and then transcribed onto the MARC record, 
whether the transcribed form of series title is the same as the authorized form of series title or not. 

Series added entry: the series in its authorized form, when that authorized form differs from the 
series as transcribed from the item. 

Summary notes: The summary note is a brief and objective statement of what the book is about, 
appears as part of the bibliographic record in eye-readable text, and contains words and phrases that 
may be searched in most online library catalogs. 

Table of contents notes: The formatted contents note appears as part of the bibliographic record in 
eye-readable text and contains words and phrases that may be searched in most online library 
catalogs. 

Table of contents: A contents note stored on an LC server and accessed via a hyperlink in the 
bibliographic record. 


116 


2006 CIP Survey 

Publishers Survey 


Section I - Publisher Profile 


1. Name of respondent: _ 

2. Job title: _ 

3. Name of publisher or imprint: _ 

4. Phone: _ 

5. Email: _ 

6. Homepage for publisher or imprint: _ 

7. In what state is your main office located? _ 

8. Check each of the programs in which you participate: 

a. Conventional (paper) CIP program_ 

b. Electronic CIP (ECIP) program_ 

c. Electronic Preassigned Control Number (EPCN) program_ 

9. Approximate number of new titles that you published last year: 

Less than 5 _ 

5 to 14 _ 

15 to 24 _ 

25 to 49 _ 

50 to 99 _ 

100 to 249 _ 

250 to 499 _ 

500 to 1,000 _ 

More than 1,000 _ 

10. Of that total, approximate percentage you received from author or agent in machine-readable 
form: 


Less than 5% 
5% to 14% _ 
15% to 29% 
30% to 49% 
50% to 74% 
75% to 99% 
100 % 


117 




























11 Do you print on demand 9 _yes _no 


12. If yes, approximate percentage of your total new title production published as print on demand 
last year: 


Less than 5% _ 

5% to 14% _ 

15% to 29% _ 

30% to 49% _ 

50% to 74% _ 

75% to 99% _ 

100% _ 

13. Do you publish e-books? _yes _no 

14. If yes, approximate percentage of your total new title production published as e-books last year: 

Less than 5% _ 

5% to 14% _ 

15% to 29% _ 

30% to 49% _ 

50% to 74% _ 

75% to 99% _ 

100% _ 

15. Of the total number of e-books published last year, approximate percentage of e-books that 
were also published in ink-print: 

Less than 5% _ 

5% to 14% _ 

15% to 29% _ 

30% to 49% _ 

50% to 74% _ 

75% to 99% _ 

100% _ 

16. If you do not currently publish e-books, do you expect to publish e-books within the next 2 

years? _yes _no 

17. What software application do you use to format content (e g., manuscripts, galleys) in final 
form for publication? 

Adobe InDesign _ 

Adobe Pagemaker _ 


118 


Microsoft Word _ 

Corel WordPerfect _ 

Quark XPress _ 

Other software application (please specify): _ 

18 How long is a typical production lifecycle of a book? (i.e. from contract to publication)? 

Less than 10 weeks _ 

10 to 19 weeks _ 

20 to 34 weeks _ 

35 to 52 weeks _ 

53 to 79 weeks _ 

80 to 104 weeks _ 

More than 104 weeks _ 

19. On average, when during the publication cycle does cover art become available? 

More than 10 weeks prior to printing _ 

6 to 10 weeks prior to printing ___ 

1 to 5 weeks prior to printing __ 

At same time as printing _ 

1 to 2 weeks after printing _ 

More than 2 weeks after printing _ 

20. On average, when during the publication cycle is a request for LC CIP data sent to the Library 
of Congress? 


More than 52 weeks prior to printing _ 

39 to 52 weeks prior to printing _ 

26 to 38 weeks prior to printing _ 

13 to 25 weeks prior to printing _ 

7 to 13 weeks prior to printing _ 

Less than 7 weeks prior to printing _ 

21. Do you create ONIX files 9 _yes _no 

22. If you create ONIX files, approximate number created last year: 

Less than 5 _ 

5 to 14 _ 

15 to 24 _ 

25 to 49 _ 

50 to 99 _ 

100 to 249 


119 































250 to 499 _ 

500 to 1,000 _ 
More than 1,000 


23. If you create ONIX files, do you distribute them 9 _yes _no 

24. If you do not create ONIX files, will you create them within the next two years? _yes 

_no 


25. Approximate percentage of your backlist titles in machine-readable form: 

Less than 5% _ 

5% to 14% _ 

15% to 29% _ 

30% to 49% _ 

50% to 74% _ 

75% to 99% _ 

100 % 


Section II - Current CIP Product 


26. Do you generally print LC CIP data in the book? 

always _ sometimes _never 

27. If only sometimes or never, why not? Please check the most common reason. 

a. Not enough space on verso of title page _ 

b. Data not requested in sufficient time _ 

c. Data not received in sufficient time _ 

d. Other CIP data printed instead (e g. British Library, Library and Archives Canada) 

e. Other: _ please describe:_ 

28. What benefits does LC CIP data provide your organization? (check all that apply): 

a. Inventory control _ 

b. Marketing _ 

c. Increased sales (in general) _ 

d. Increased sales to libraries_ 

e. Other: _ please describe:_ 


Use the following scale for question 29: 

0 - Not applicable 


120 

































1 - Not satisfied 

2 - Somewhat satisfied 

3 - Satisfied 

4 - Very satisfied 

29. Rate your satisfaction for each of the following: 

a. Format of CIP data _ 

b. Accuracy of subject analysis in CIP data 

c. Typographical accuracy of CIP data 

d. Publisher-supplied summaries appearing in CIP data 

e. Timeliness of CIP data 

f. Timeliness of changes to CIP data 

g. ECIP system for submitting data _ 

h. Communication regarding upcoming changes in the CIP program 

i. Courtesy of your CIP liaison 

j. Technical expertise of your CIP liaison 

k. Telephone availability of your CIP liaison 

l. Email availability of your CIP liaison 

m. Online CIP Publisher Manual 

30. Comments on questions 1-29: 


Section III - Possible Future CIP Product 


31. In what format would you like to receive your LC CIP data? 


a. 

Printed card image 

b. 

Full MARC record 

c. 

XML 

d. 

PDF _ 

e 

QNIX 

f. 

Other format (please specify) 


121 









32. Do you want the option to pull LC CIP data (current data and data completed within the last 

year) from an LC server? _yes _no 

33. Do you use the LC/NACO Authority File ? _yes _no 

34. Do you currently create or maintain audio or video files of authors for marketing purposes 9 

_yes _no 

35. If you create or maintain audio or video files of authors, approximately how many files per 
year? 


Less than 5 _ 

5 to 14 _ 

15 to 24 _ 

25 to 49 _ 

50 to 99 _ 

100 to 249 _ 

250 to 500 _ 

More than 500 _ 

36. If you do not create or maintain audio or video files of authors, do you plan to create or 

maintain such files within the next two years? _yes _no 

37. In addition to the printed copy of the book (that publishers participating in the LC CIP program 
are obligated to send to the Library of Congress), would you be willing to send to LC the final 
version of the book in PDF or similar format, if rules to access that copy were limited to one reader 
at a time and the reader could not print, copy, or download the text? 

_yes _no 

Use the following rating scale for question 38, 

0 - Not applicable / no impact 

1 - Significant negative impact 

2 - Negative impact 

3 - Positive impact 

4 - Significant positive impact 

38. LC is considering several options to ensure that the resources available to support the CIP 
Program are aligned with the demands that are made of the CIP Program. Please evaluate the impact 
each of these options might have on your operations: 

a. enlisting carefully screened and qualified cataloging partners from the library 

community to catalog CIPs in specific subject areas and/or from specific publishers 


122 






b changing eligibility guidelines to require publishers to have at least 5 different 
published titles by 5 different authors _ 

c. implementing a more thorough review process for publisher eligibility, which may 

take 3-6 months from date of application to participate _ 

d. removing publishers who have no CIP activity for 24 months _ 

39. LC welcomes feedback from the publishing community on the options listed above as well as all 
other aspects of the LC CIP Program. 

Comments: 


Glossary for the Publishers Survey 

Full MARC record: One of the products of the CIP Program is the creation of a complete 
bibliographic record in machine-readable form. This MARC record appears in the Library of 
Congress catalog, the catalogs of major bibliographic utilities, and many library catalogs across the 
country and around the world. 

LC CIP data: "CIP data" in its broadest sense refers to the bibliographic record created by the 
Library of Congress for a book prior to its publication. Strictly speaking, however, "CIP data" is the 
bibliographic record that appears printed on the verso of the book's title page. It is an abbreviated 
version of the machine-readable record (or MARC record) that resides on the Library's database and 
which is distributed to libraries, bibliographic utilities, and book vendors. 

LC/NACO Authority File: A file of authority records for names, titles, name/title combinations, 
and LC subject headings. Each record shows the authorized form of heading as well as any 
references to variant forms. 

ONIX ONline Information exchange, an international standard for representing and 
communicating book industry product information in electronic form, developed by the Association 
of American Publishers and EDItEUR. 

PDF Portable Document Format, a file format developed by Adobe Systems and widely used in 
document exchange, especially on the World Wide Web. 

Print on demand The process of printing books as they are sold rather than printing them in large 
quantities. 


123 






Printed card image. The traditional format used for CIP data as it is sent to the publisher for 
printing on the verso of the title page. A printed card refers to a printed 3"x5" catalog card designed 
for library card catalogs. 

XML: Extensible Markup Language, a language used to allow for the easy interchange of 
documents on the World Wide Web. 


124 


Appendix B: CIP Guidelines for Summaries 


I. Background 

The CIP Division has always encouraged publishers to include summaries with their application for 
CIP data as they facilitate subject analysis and other aspects of the cataloging process. These 
summaries are especially important for juvenile materials as they provide an excellent starting point 
for catalogers creating summaries that are included in the bibliographic record for juvenile titles. 
Summaries are also mandatory in those instances when publishers submit applications via the 
Electronic CIP system and provide less than the full galley. The summaries submitted in these 
instances do not appear in the bibliographic record but serve as a tool to help in the cataloging 
process and/or to assist catalogers who create summaries for juvenile titles. The CIP Division 
continues to urge publishers to submit summaries for these reasons. 

More recently, however, the CIP Division has developed guidelines for those publishers who would 
like to see the summaries they prepare appear in the catalog record as submitted as well as in the 
CIP data to be printed in the published book. Those guidelines appear below and are applicable to 
both adult works and non-fiction juvenile titles. Please note that catalogers will continue to create 
summaries for juvenile fiction titles and will use the summaries provided by publishers as in the past 
as source material and not the final product. 

II. Policy 

The following guidelines are provided to publishers for the submission of publisher-supplied 
summaries for new adult and non-fiction juvenile works prior to publication. If accepted by the 
Library of Congress, a summary provided by the publisher will be used in the catalog record created 
by Library of Congress staff and distributed to libraries, book vendors, and bibliographic utilities. 

The summary will also appear in the CIP data sent to the publisher for inclusion in the printed book. 

Summaries provided by publishers will not be edited or changed but will be accepted or rejected 
upon submission based on their compliance with these guidelines. The CIP Division will not accept 
any summary containing obscene or profane language. The CIP Division will not accept or process 
change requests for these summaries. The summaries will be clearly attributed to the publisher by 
quotation marks and the legend “Provided by publisher.” 

The Library of Congress reserves the right to remove a summary provided by the publisher at any 
time should the summary not fully adhere to the CIP Guidelines for Summaries. 

III. Writing a summary 

A summary note is a brief, clear, and objective description of a publication. The purpose of a 
summary on bibliographic records created as part of the Cataloging in Publication program is to 
provide additional information to help readers identify books they want to read. Summaries also play 


125 





a uniquely important role when CIP catalog records appear in online catalogs of libraries and book 
sellers as they enable the user to search the book by the keywords that appear in the summary. 

A good summary is non-critical ("Recounts the life and times of Benjamin Franklin as related 
through personal narratives, journal entries, and other primary source materials") and avoids 
personal opinion and advertising hype ("Another superlative and important novel by today’s greatest 
living American author"). A good summary conveys the scope of the book, it reflects content, and it 
avoids any judgmental statements. 

Characteristics of a good summary: 

• Concise: The summary should be brief. A length of no more than fifty (50) words is 
recommended, especially in view of the printing of CIP data in the published book; often one 
sentence or phrase is sufficient. 

• Objective: The summary should present an unbiased point-of-view and not represent the 
opinion of the publisher or author. The summary is neither a review nor a description of the 
publisher’s or author's intent. 

• Informative: Specific terms, names of people, geographical areas, and time periods should 
be used in summaries as appropriate. 

• Timeless: A summary may be used for years after it is written. Avoid using words and 
phrases that indicate the currency of a work, e g., latest, state-of-the-art, newest, most 
recent, and so on. 

• Language: Use Standard English; avoid using slang, colloquial terms, or jargon; do not use 
profane or obscene language. Spell out acronyms and initialisms. Use standard and/or 
preferred spellings of words. Avoid abbreviations and shortened forms of words - e g., 
biographies, not bios. Use words that are simple and direct. Avoid obscure words, words 
that have more than one meaning, redundancies, and cliches. 

• Style: Use the active voice, present tense, and third person. Do not use subjective words or 
phrases that may be promotional or judgmental - e g., "best", "most creative", "remarkable", 
etc. Avoid overlong and complex sentences, choppy sentences, and wordiness. Spell out 
whole numbers from one to ninety-nine and those above ninety-nine are given as figures. If 
three or more words or phrases are used in a series, separate the words or phrases with 
commas. Follow the Chicago Manual of Style when creating summaries. 

• Grammar, capitalization, and punctuation: Correct English grammar should be used in all 
summaries. Subject and verbs must agree. Avoid misplaced modifiers and dangling 
participles. The first word of each sentence or phrase should be capitalized, as should all 
proper nouns. Use proper and adequate punctuation. 


126 



Examples of acceptable summaries: 


A basic introduction to how our bodies perceive taste and smell, exploring such topics as the 
taste buds, the detection of different tastes, the structure of the nose, and artificial tastes and 
smells. 

Discusses the nature and causes of acid rain, its harmful effects, and possible ways to prevent 
it. 

Looks at important writings and moments in American history during the Spanish American 
War, annexation of the Philippines and other territories, and the Industrial Revolution. 

A resource on the treatment of headaches, including: treatment options for migraines, cluster 
headaches, and tension headaches, information and quick-reference guides on 
over-the-counter and prescription medications, alternative treatments, relaxation techniques, 
biofeedback, and an index of headache clinics and organizations. 

Presents selections from sources such as memoirs, letters, and newspaper accounts, relating 
to the nineteenth century expansion of America westward to the Pacific Ocean by Lewis and 
Clark, Zebulon Pike, and many others. 

Examines the evolution of stone architecture in the Middle Ages and the techniques of 
building castles and cathedrals. 

Tracks the history of wine-making in the United States. 

Describes the 1961 flight of Soviet astronaut Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space, as well as 
the scientific background to that flight and space exploration since then. 

An introduction to the physical characteristics, behavior, habitat, and life cycle of raccoons. 

Presents information on the history and development of the English language. Features more 
than 13,000 words traced to their origins in Proto-Indo-European, the prehistoric ancestor 
of English. Includes an essay on the Proto-Indo-European culture and a dictionary of more 
than 1,300 reconstructed roots as well as related language and culture notes. 

Acceptable and unacceptable examples compared: 

Unacceptable. 

Compelling narrative laced with first-person accounts from both American and Japanese 
survivors combines with dramatic archival images and a brief overview to paint a vivid portrait of 
what it was like to have witnessed, participated in, and lived through the surprise attack on Pearl 
Harbor that infamous morning of December 7, 1941. Historical photos set the scene. This landmark 


127 




volume will provide young readers with valuable insights into both the Japanese and American 
points of view and demonstrate why people on both sides feel the need to remember Pearl Harbor. 

Acceptable. 

Collection of stories told by American and Japanese survivors of the Dec. 7, 1941 attack on 
Pearl Harbor, describing their experiences. 

Unacceptable. 

Serve up a heaping lesson of history with delicious recipes from our nation's past— from the 
pilgrims' first feast to today's high-tech, low-fat fare— Who knew history could be so delicious? In 
The U S. History Cookbook, you'll discover how Americans have lived and dined over the centuries. 
This scrumptious survey of periods and events in U.S. history mixes together a delectable batter of 
food time lines, kid-friendly recipes, and fun food facts throughout each chapter, including such 
fascinating tidbits as: Sunday was baked bean day in many colonial family homes; pioneers took 
advantage of the rough trails to churn milk into butter; the Girl Scouts first started selling cookies in 
the 1930s to save money for summer camp; and so much more! 

Acceptable. 

Presents a variety of American recipes along with information on the people and events from 
the history of the United States. 

Unacceptable. 

Wind, rain, soft drifting snowflakes and burning sunshine: all kids wonder what makes the 
weather what it is. How can we predict whether there will be blue skies or rain tomorrow? Where 
do clouds come from? Why do we have thunder and lightning? Answer all these questions and more 
with entertaining experiments geared to youngsters in the second and third grades. 

Acceptable. 

Introduces information on weather through a variety of weather-related experiments. 

Intended for second and third grade students. 

Unacceptable. 

The definitive one-volume history of the most fascinating franchise in baseball. For a century 
now, the Boston Red Sox have meant many different things to many different people, eliciting 
elation, frustration, nostalgia, nausea, confidence, anger, bewilderment, love, and loss, often all at 
once. But no matter the ups and downs, in their long, storied history the Red Sox have always 
managed to provide us with one thing that is certain — they are the most interesting team ever. 

Acceptable. 

Through interviews and photographs, presents information on many Boston Red Sox 
players, managers, fans, and events, and traces the history of the team from its beginning in 1901 to 
the end of the twentieth century. 


128 


IV. Submitting a summary 


Publishers wishing to submit summaries for inclusion in Library of Congress catalog records and 
willing to comply fully with the CIP Guidelines for Summaries must follow these steps: 

1. Use the summary box on the CIP application 

2. Enclose entire summary in quotation marks 

3. After the closing quotes, label the summary as being publisher-supplied by including this 
exact text and formatting: “ Provided by publisher. 

4. Note that the text of the summary should not end with a period. 

Example of a summary as placed in the summary box on the CIP application: 

“Presents information regarding online resources in the fields of accounting and finance. Includes 
Web addresses, descriptions, and reviews”—Provided by publisher. 


129 





































































































































































































































































































































































■ t ” 1 V ^xaV ok V 

V ■ , H: -illM W •MSk* ** zmw* ■ 

r n 7. £-b^/i: ~_uNx\>^ _ x v *J _ c-.n 3£ <//%S■3S>S\V -< <. >» ^ sl^Siimnirt&r^ n „ 


7 o* X * 

<Cr X* 

^ A^/l, o 
0 

«n i ^ V °o 

^b %o 

,r o * j&a(\T/fe? + ^ X 

* ** ifsWfcXX ■* 

: * V*0* « » OV ., 1A ^w^>r o <■ w « nsw * 

? * ^Oa <» x^yisA^ o *0 »/y »- * AO* o o 

;||‘V %A /<**'♦ XA *■ ^ 


*y 

♦ 


' V 'O*. «► 

A . * 

* ^ C° NG 

4 V <> 



V' „v 

>'* n ' O\> 
* n A> «*> X 

° 'I 

° °f 

, V dA 1 '*' *- 

V, <-. .* 




B _ X\ , 

V” AX-AX * * ’>> l, *« 

° „ A * X- o <• 

t v}«^ ^ AkNN.vU^Jv Cfv <_, 




A” A 


r *** ,vV iy. v \t4iz .vum \f^r At •v>~ o'"* 

^ M* *> d> 

i” 4 A* / k c S *o o* 

> S ,C<\ oto 



„ - .Av '■6. 

A'''' , ’ <?*'”'+% /> 

I XX /Jill'*, \ A f 


«.* * O 



^O * M fflgSC" * 

- +r °n o 0 

« * > °4r >!) n 0 

^ av: 

• \A '<mk\ 1 

o ty 5 *^* o <» ^y ■A *1 ^ 

* A ^J* ° ^ Xv ^ * 

O' ^ - " * ' co n c 

- O ♦ <3rY^X ■#> *J .«^ J* C W 

‘ f ^d i •Mrft&’l ' y o> t ’ ° 4|ii®. ' 

ko v°°^ * o^- 1 
v . - . — 


xAO 




<i 

\^W' 

* %„/ * ° * 




, JO, oTV^R\JJ » -j* ^ JO, J *V^%V' ^ ^ <£? J J‘j, ° 

< 4 * * oo^;;xK° * * * '»^S° * * *:^. 

, "W "bv 5 ' W “ . 

> ^VOj. 



c^ : 

■> x 

%°o 

v .w,V.v.‘V 

>o/ ^\o^° ‘ T : 'W j 

* S®* . 


r Jj-s? :*»=, " 

i • ra®“ <^ 

<% ■'a > '%OSr 'S o~ v 

r ° * (X^ N ,. ** « -» sS 


<■ '«f, <t ^ 

*> r /*o % * 

* <^0<v <• 

b\A ;»V ^ 

o c3^r 2 ~ 




V°^c 


AQ> 





V^j,,, » 4 Pj, 'iji*’ 

i V »H*, V : 

\w$m * ^ V< V 




Xo 


|^ n o » X y ’^G » lliiiilfc * < .v ) o to ^ 

-to 4) o li/^«RAN < A V vV, ^3wG^* * ■y_j > o ^ 

• >t*LxX'° • * * %^\'° * i y 

*a$ ^ iim&* *b& 5 


AX * o 

^ X> 0° 

■ ^ - 


G -b 

>0^ « 

A 0 * * 

A ^ °o ^ 

^ X W ° NU 
v A „* X 

p o ^ ^ Xr ^ 

o v^ 0 r 

o c^'To. 2 r A X> 

, ... .. .... V 41 
<y ?*m £* 0 




^ A o- 



/°» k A =.° N0 *.X j * -' 0^ ^ L, ‘t\ 

.* A ^ <5m*k - MM02l - 


X c£ v 

'V'\j°’'°*/X ° ’ ‘V/ ’■'* AoJ°" 1 V'\j° ko< /V' ’ ’ S A« ii * 


r o. 


( V A ^vw, V. Q •'f j, y, 9 

v, w V” ^ _ Ji ^fcjJVvVsS* to —.O’ v/. j ^•■y/7lU£3B »y w/> ^ 

, V” *>x>\ "VV V%v*" v<‘”^\* OHO > 

VA ejiir J J' C T ~ Z VV , . 

c3X 2 WWS$ to A A 1 llilW 0 o WW$$ * » 

‘ * w/ * xx % A" X w." ^ XvAv x y X V 

^O a ,A ^>. ^ 

C>^ ^/xp/YT’?? * -~o »' - c w* , 0 - *■ 

- f 




»bA ^W- ■‘bv 4 -' Xo^° / 

tp-v, 4 -°j* °ii§?\° X *, , w; A * 


1 <y <> 

A> ONC^ <P 



w 


. d>*h 

to \»> v 




« » S 


1 A 

-’oS?’ ° 

V" V'.ASi'"-;^: 

* \4^ °° cT^ 

u 


>> oHj^ A X * %a|P’ * v> J >, o WWSf * X ^IP' A’ 

,°V“* x A o° ho «/V* * “ 4 At* l "Ao'° * ‘"A o 
y- A A .'MV Av 4 * 4 ^ 


»\A <f> J^TTs- ,< 


w. cr • 

*■ 




V an o° \P 

Q fi ® , ' 1 * 

k/* f^&£\ %&';' 
*% a 'jSb* ° 


•v;.. ;y> t °v°° - - 

v s % *JL v <?<, jp 

> ^ At\VJt?A* * *r a. x^> < 


v K o* ^o v **y* °%<; 

*%C^ *^ /k0 



j&&: ^Vlf8p. ; "•ms: ^ 

>mo vV" ’ * o°A ”‘'’\ 0 * 1 v^.yyxV" * * 'Ai^* 

c*’ 'A; W ?d!£\\<P -'0k\ W 

V“^\w/V®.A : ®*- ^ 5 

• ° * x A -vi ^ ^A* * * * ^ 


>*•” *vV* '\ ,, “ , /oS' 

**11111; / ^% ° e 

vVA 1 Si»K n 

r 0 * - 


V 0 ’^ c oN G< 

J “ <? ■/? /-v' o' i 

I O 4 <( -vS^.n. ^ V/ . U -c - 

; •W' ® 


n * 


S< 


t Ao 0 ^ * C °1A \ 

to* > 






\VK * VO V> x 

s\N * <y- 

^* C °JA< 



o c5 J, fjp 

^ 4) W// \w// % . 

u,,\'«. ^ cOBCJ1 V'.. y<- 3 - 

wr ,« K . -W .*Jllk ^ ^ 'mUk* *%? 

* -^ /h \ *jjfi||; *J§ill*r 

S '* ^' _sS ‘° °v* Z^’\'"' '/«A'" oA l,j< ' 

; w /-^&'. ^ 'W’ W 

° 0 V °\ '^¥mr* &' 0 *- '®'’ v °^ 

% <tr ^ aKO ° " 

Y , ^> r>. r r» 



v -^ ^ ^ 

r VC, 65 


* 


% ^ ^ 
* c -- ft z 


*•* ^ov^ •^k'. ^o 4 -M&sa* oi§»r. ^aaS :sk' ^ 

v°rk t • -5Q 

> A 




^Qa 

AAA> aTo :< 


S> cl- 
Vcy’ 


. ■ y ov k ’ ° 

>° ^ - 
« aO 



°0, 

^ -v 5 t* R SJ * < 


a7 c n */' 

'»'T *’ S V ( • » A ,!>KO 

° * % 


A 0 0 V , 

; V » 

* v ^> \\ 
% * 


V*V 


^pCj 5 


5y ♦ rA^^/V). o ' 


tf jn » 




, V. 

O "%■<< .. H 

% K^;>°o°'* “'fev• ><^<;• 

^ w /^®'. ^ .§m&\ v :||* V 

t, ’ <6 y 4 ' . v V . •r, 

»0 A A* .<* - <A *' 


























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































